wild spaces

(pulp mill effluent image on front page is from http://www.surfrider.org/srui.aspx?uiq=a-z/pulp_mills)

Population numbers
Decidedly, the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, is proving a substantial disappointment on some major environmental group concerns. As President of the Australian Conservation Foundation he infuriated Australians who were concerned about too much population growth in this country by heading an organisation which refused to voice their concerns and failed to uphold its own constitutional policy on population, but would act as if it was representing the Australian public and ACF constitutional values in this matter.

RAMSAR Wetlands
Since becoming Environment Minister, Garrett has outraged the Blue Wedges, a substantial environmental movement in Victoria, centred around the health of Port Phillip Bay because of what they see as his abject failure to protect the bay, including its RAMSAR wetlands areas, and his failure to meet his obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) Act to consider sustainability principles – including intergenerational equity.

Intergenerational Equity

"How," asks Blue Wedges, "can it be equitable to future generations of humans - and all other species for that matter- to leave a legacy of a toxic dump in the Bay, 60 times larger than the Hattah Nowingi site near Mildura? It is worth remembering that in 2006, the Mildura site was rejected, first by the community and then by an independent planning panel."

EPBC Act
Australian wildlife campaigners had hoped that Garrett in government would intervene to make the EPBC Act more effective. Instead he has relied upon its inherent weaknesses to support more development in and destruction of important environments around Australia. Environmentalists, many who elected him, have found his performance bitterly disappointing. (The Act had never been very strong but had been further watered-down by the Howard Government in 2006 amendments.)

Murray Darling Basin

And his failure to intervene in the Murray Darling Basin South Australia crisis has provoked disgust. Here, as with Port Phillip Bay, RAMSAR wetlands and fragile marine ecosystems are threatened.

The Arts

Yesterday, The Age reported that Garrett, as Minister for the Arts has let down the arts community badly, defending the Rudd Government’s 3.25% funding cut to small public sector agencies, such as the National Gallery of Australia, National Library of Australia and the Australian War Memorial. See: http://news.theage.com.au/national/cultural-institutions-get-enough-money-20080825-41xf.html

Broad agreement that Garrett is a dud

In short there is broad agreement that Garrett is a dud – although calling someone a dud is likely to have one ejected for the House of Representatives (ABC PM tonight – 26-8-08) …..It seems even parliamentary privilege is no protection for robust criticism any more - So much for freedom of speech in this fair land!

Green Senator denied CSIRO research report on Gunns Pulp Mill

On the 21st of August, Senator Christine Milne strongly criticized Garrett’s failure to supply her Freedom of Information request for a CSIRO research report from a member of an independent expert group which has the task of reviewing material submitted by Gunns pulp mill.

Query about pulp mill effluent dumping

According to her press release of 21-8-08, Senator Milne believes that the report relates to “Gunns’ intention to dump 64,000 tonnes of effluent into Bass Strait per day and the probabilities of it exceeding the allowable effluent concentration.”

Garrett's department mired in process?

On 22 August, Garrett, in an ABC Radio National Breakfast interview with Fran Kelly Garrett seemed basically to be saying that his department would not release the report Milne was complaining about because the material in it had not been verified and because there was a process whereby Gunns could be asked to supply more information to clarify the material in the report. One wonders if Garrett was being circumspect because of the possibility that Gunns (famous for having pursued 16 individuals - including Green MPs Bob Brown and Peg Putt - and four green organisations - including the Wilderness Society - for a total $6.3 million damages arising out of protests and campaigns against the company) could sue for defamation if a report led to financial losses and could be shown to be knowingly premature or incomplete.

Senator Milne seems to be indicating in her complaints, that she believes that the report must already be adequately informed.

Deadline for Gunns

In the interview with Fran Kelly of the ABC it was made clear by Garrett that Gunns has until October 4, 2008, to finalise its input into the Government's assessment process. It sounded like Garrett might well give Gunns more time if it requested this.

Both Senator Milne, in her 21 August press release, and Fran Kelly in her 22 August interview with Garrett, described Gunns' as if they were in severe financial difficulty and as if the question of the amount of discharge they might be contemplating was the focus of much speculation in the business community.
Senator Milne: “With Gunns stock in freefall, and rife speculation in the investment community as to the content of scientific studies, this is not the time for the Government to prioritise Gunns’ commercial interest over the public interest."

Fran Kelly: "Yesterday, shares in Gunns were at an eight year low, in fact placed in a trading halt while the company goes out seeking this funding. In the last few weeks doubts have been raised about the future of the pulp mill. Leighton Holdings boss, Wal King, says it will never be built and there are some reports that even the new Tasmanian Premier, David Bartlett is sceptical."

This kind of comment about Gunn's financial situation should, one would think, tend to alleviate any anxiety Mr Garrett might have about the possibility of defamatorily prejudicing Gunns' business outlook by the release of more information.

Milne: Since when does an environment minister protect the interests of big business over those of the public?

Garrett's close-lipped approach on this matter does seem to lend weight to the relevance of Senator Milne's question:

“Since when has the Commonwealth Environment Minister seen himself as the protector of the interests of big business at the expense of the environment and the public interest?"

Changes to defamation laws

For many years it was extremely difficult for the Australian press to report clearly on financial matters because of Australia's defamation laws, which did not support truth in reporting and which could lead to extraordinary costs in court. In those days, even if what you said about a company was true, if that company lost money over your revelation, you might lose any case they brought against you for defamation. This problem is well treated at the end of Trevor Sykes, The Bold Riders, Allen and Unwin, Australia, 1996, for anyone who would like to know more. (Trevor Sykes writes for the Financial Review as Pierpoint.)

Since 2006 these state laws have been largely harmonised and made much more reasonable, with truth a very strong defense and the public interest a non-qualifier or at most a minor qualifier. There are also limitations on costs and processes (articulated or implied through precedent) to increase motivation to mediate rather than to sue. The very unpopular Howard Government immigration minister, Philip Rudd, was responsible for placing pressure to free up these laws in favour of public expression.

Article written by Sheila Newman with Jenny Warfe

Poet pens a plea to stop population push

By Mark Uhlmann Assembly Reporter

(Growth Concern: Mark O’Connor)

As the federal and ACT governments preach the virtues of high population growth a few individuals are prepared to put an alternative view.

One of those is Canberra poet Mark O’Connor, co-author of a book soon to be published by Enviro Books called Overloading Australia.

The Stanhope Government boasted this week of increases to interstate and international migration to Canberra, but O’Connor said, “Canberra’s going downhill rapidly."

“We have this mad pro-development Government that tries to push more and more people into it.”

He said most people wanted Canberra “kept more or less the way it is”, but could not get representation for this view in the ACT Legislative Assembly.

Canberra’s present population was more than enough and Government programs encouraging more people to come were irresponsible.

At the very least there should not be an open-ended commitment to ever more suburbs, which was the case at present, he said.
The economy was dependent on more suburbs being built. The result was a declining quality of life for those faced with higher population densities.

O’Connor said “citizen disobedience” was now appropriate. For example, that we should not conserve water.
This would “only be encouraging (Chief Minister) Jon Stanhope to push us further into a position where come the next drought we’ll have an even larger population”.

Until the Government had a plan to cap the population, it was counterproductive to conserve water.

Across the country, population growth was being demanded as a necessary part of economic growth, putting an increasing strain on the infrastructure of cities.

Australia’s annual population growth was 1.5 per cent.

“The UN Population Fund regards 1.1 per cent as too high in Asia.” O’Connor said.

The growth was about half natural increase and half immigration. Immigration was at record highs and all the pressure from government and industry was to be even more irresponsible.

There was recognition by governments that greenhouse gases had to be cut, but by some trick that had to be divorced from economic growth, and the economy just had to keep on growing. “That’s an unsustainable position, that will come unstuck before long,” O’Connor said.

There was a “selective deafness in the media” on the population issue.

The president of the Australian conservation Foundation, Ian Lowe, had tried to raise the population issue at the 2020 Summit, but had been up against a belief that population growth and economic growth were good.

O’Connor said, “Unless you win this (population) battle, in the long-run every environmental battle will be lost.”

(Reprinted with the author's permission from From The Canberra Times Saturday May 24 2008 page 15 News)

Perhaps the most urgent near-term issue for environmentalists is one that few yet talk about. It is what I call "the human bottleneck".

Just as the genus homo itself went through a bottleneck when all but one of its species vanished, and just as even that one survivor, homo sapiens, seems to have fallen at one point to less than 10,000 breeding pairs, so all other species on Earth will soon have to pass through a bottleneck as humans pass through what we hope will be a maximum population of about 9 billion, later this century. This will leave so little land and food for other species that many, perhaps most of them, will perish.

Note that the narrowest part of the bottleneck for other species will not necessarily come when the human population peaks. At that stage many, or even most humans will still be living in poverty but aspiring to affluence. Hence the squeeze on all other species will actually continue to get worse, and perhaps very much worse, after the human population peaks.

The assumption that world population could peak at approximately 9 billion is taken from
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html

For the assumption that much of that population will still be pursuing increased consumption, and thus intensifying rather than relaxing the squeeze on other species, the author relies on his perception of common experience of human nature and of social inequalities.

You'll notice that the graph has such a small scale on the X axis (which covers 200,000 years) that one cannot read fine detail from it about values on the Y axis over the next 50 years (which would be speculative in any case) or the last 50. This suits, because the figures would vary according to what measures are used.

e.g. it is commonly said that humans now use some 40% of the Earth's primary production (i.e. plant food created from sunlight). But it does not follow that 60% of Earth's surface is freely available for other species, and I presume less than 20% is in virgin state. It also depends whether one includes the oceans. Virtually no part of the ocean surface is not harvested by fishermen, so this might put us as at present intensively harvesting the production of 80% of the planet rather than 40%.

Fortunately, as I say, the graph does not permit of reading its values in such fine detail over short periods --which is another way of saying that the overall shape remains the same pretty much regardless of what measure one uses for human domination.

Mark O'Connor CMC,
home page: www.australianpoet.com

Mark O'Connor is the author of This Tired Brown Land, Duffy and Snelgrove, NSW, 1994. He was Australia's Olympic poet for the year of the olympics in Sydney. He has published many books of poetry, much of it on ecological subjects.