resources depletion

The latest propaganda inundation to force people to accept overpopulation as a fait accompli is coming from the so-called "Bradfield Oration",₁ which is to be inaugurated by that mass-media propaganda horn, Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. The University of Sydney and Lend Lease have been described as 'key partners' in this 'initiative'₂ which will steer university students their way by awarding an associated prize. So much for independence in academia, eh?

The current publicity machine anoints some architect from New York to tell Australians how to suck eggs for their greedy masters.₂ Vishann Chakrabarti is being used to frighten the people of Sydney with a "build up or else" and to market the idea of selling air-space to developers so that they can build the residential towers residents have been fighting for generations. This concept of selling airspace is obscene in the context of human rights as well as Australian values of freedom and nature accessible to all. Australia's self-appointed leaders are in the business of making everything for sale by privatising all natural rights and resources. They should be put on trial for this as a criminal conspiracy to advantage a few at the expense of the many citizens whose taxes they abuse for their own ends. Unfortunately they also make the laws.

“If you don’t plan, those folks in Western Sydney will have their worst nightmares come true,’’ Chakrabarti told The Daily Telegraph, threatening that Sydney "would also struggle to create good jobs and fall behind East Asian cities like Hong Kong and Shanghai".

That is the awful benchmark our enemies who call themselves our leaders seek to impose on the rest. It is indeed our worst nightmare, to compete with Hong Kong and Shanghai. Only psychopaths like warlords and corporate landlords would wish such a nightmare on Australians. Good leaders would lead us against it.

Bad leaders stand on a rubbish heap of trashed human rights

How could any self-respecting media dignify such authoritarian drivel as the basis of planning policy? Is this what inevitably happens in a capitalist system that privileges bullies and psychopaths by making them rich enough to dominate the public messaging system? If it cannot be made democratic then we can only hope the system will be brought down. The sole reason most of those talking up development and population growth are even heard is that they stand astride a skyscraping rubbish-heap of trashed human rights which they have helped to bury through land-speculation on an industrial scale.

The mass media that purveys this propaganda and invests in real-estate, keeps any dissenting views to a whisper. The ABC follows suit in a conspiracy to protect the beneficiaries of propaganda. Australians hate what is happening, but because so many still rely on the mainstream media to understand what is happening and to represent their views, they fail to connect on the ground and therefore fail to organise. Most people reading these transparent propaganda tracts marketing population growth and infrastructure explosion as inevitable must feel alone in their horror.

I believe that I have shown in Demography, Territory, Law: the Rules of Animal and Human Populations, that growth is not inevitable and that about half of the first world nations are planning to adapt positively to smaller populations by the 2050s.

Chakrabati is also reported to have said that the selling of airspace to highrise developers is, “a very viable model as areas around train stations are very, very valuable.’’ Fighting highrise development above a local station was where Marvellous Melbourne came into being, with the help of Planning Backlash. Marvellous Melbourne sought to publicise what the speculators who have taken over our government had planned for Camberwell Station, in Melbourne, Victoria. As well as the imposed massive changes to the local visual and experienced environment, there was the abrogation of democracy of local residents. The situation has since greatly deteriorated with VCAT, the Victorian Court system, now imposing impossible costs on citizens to prevent them from exercising self-government.

Coming up from the wings in the two party fixed horse race ₃ towards impossible living conditions is the growing unaffordability of land-rates. As well as driving up rental costs, elderly residents innocently living in homes they bought and paid for decades ago, find that rates based on speculative land-values are pulling them into debt at a time of life when wages and pensions do not keep up with the related inflation. And it is not just the elderly, young renters and young home-owners face lifetimes of enslavement to debt with little prospect of retaining equity in purchased property as these costs rise.

Of course, this suits the predators who pass for parliamentarians and their friends, because it means that a proportion of those people will be forced to sell-up and move out, creating a dynamic that will favour subdivisions, making housing even less affordable.

"Policies which promise to build low cost modest housing, or any policy which increases density will only drive prices higher and worsen the situation. By reducing dwelling size, the premium paid for land increases and land price increases." (Dennis K in "The Housing market and the death of Australia.")

Whilst building high-rent slums, the person or corporation that buys the 'air-rights' around the stations servicing increasingly congested suburbs will make billions of dollars, far more than is needed to buy parliamentarians and political parties.

We are told that the Planning Department estimates Sydney’s population will increase by 1.6 million over the next 20 years, requiring 664,300 new homes. Chris Johnson, of Urban Taskforce, an organisation that represents the interests of property developers, is quoted predictably as saying that 'Sydney will need to build 100 new high-rise apartment towers a year for the next 50 years to accommodate a third of the increased population.' Only if Mr Johnson and his allies get away with their political push to bulldoze Australians' rights.

Australia's population is increasing at an unsustainable rate, impacting on democracy, the environment, and civil rights, only due to immigration policy at both Federal and State levels. All the states have websites inviting people to come and live in them and all the states pretend they have no control over the situation. The Australian government is trying to induce young people to move to the north of Australia in the context of high unemployment. The aim is to give young people no choice but to work for the predators who are moving in on the north to cover it in mines, roads, dams and suburbs. There will be no natural environment left at this rate. The high immigration that permits all these abuses is not Australia's friend. But it's not terrorism from overseas we should fear most; it is the terrorism of the developers inside and outside parliament who are removing our rights in order to promote growth for their selfish profits.

Probably the only way to change this kind of situation is through a revolution that redistributes land and decommodifies it. With the mass media working so successfully to keep Australians ignorant and isolated from each other, this would be almost inconceivable, except that there is also a good possibility that petroleum depletion and the inadequacy of alternative sources of power and of nuclear will undermine the awful profit system we are groaning under. The result will be a decline in the ability to travel long distances and a return to the family and clan unit, interacting locally. The family and clan unit has an organic power structure, rooted geopolitically in its local environment. ₄

Did Vishann Chakrabarti, touted as a 'leading New York architect' willingly lend his name to this subversion of democracy by the new Australian squattocracy? Such a man could use his position to denounce the hidious transformation of the world into New York-style ghettos divided by desert, or he can use it to help Australian Prime Minister Abbott to further privilege corporate power and wealth, in an entropic race to the bottom.

Footnotes

1. ↑ Bradfield was a founding member of the Australian Engineers Institute and famous for being the engineer in charge of the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. He was also famous for pushing schemes to turn Australian rivers inland to animate the desert. Someone decided to attach his name to give some ersatz gravitas to this grande bouffe for greedy developers. However, I note that his great great granddaughter, Holly Parker, won a young scientist prize for a kind of packaging that can be replanted after use, which sounds like a generational turn for the better.

2. ↑ See, for instance, article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph: Sydney Harbour Bridge engineer John Bradfield: A great legacy to live up to in our city.

3. ↑ The ALP saw that Bill Shorten, rather than the membership favoured Anthony Albanese, was pushed to the top of the heap after the last election. Shorten, like Abbott, will push population growth on behalf of the ruling and wealthy classes, whereas Albanese actually said he preferred for Australians to democratically decide on immigration numbers. See "Numbers man” Shorten apparently open- ended on Australia’s population numbers."

4. ↑ Demography, Territory, Law: the Rules of Animal and Human Populations

Former career mining professional Simon Michaux gives a public lecture in Adelaide describing the onset of 'peak mining' and its various implications for natural resource management. A significant and comprehensive update to the field. Governments will be watching this one and trying to ignore it.

A useful presentation of the decline in return on energy invested. The industry is having to work harder and harder in order to get returns. Of course the industry is not going to admit this to potential investors or to governments because, if they did, governments would put the brakes on, realising that we are heading for uncontrollable problems if we do not.

The United States with its fracking and oil-shale mining; canada with its tarsands etc - they are able to get money to invest in the short term because of high demand and low intelligence and education in the investor community. The same kind of thing is happening with many resources, including uranium.

This is the picture that is not shown by graphs of oil production, which manage to convey the impression that per capital production is on a very slightly declining trajectory. If the increasing cost of the extraction from the earth were actually taken into account, we would see a much more rapid downward curve.

What would Dr Nugget Coombs think of our treatment of the environment and the economy today? Quark applies a retrospectoscope to the problem as she reports on a 1970 Boyer Lecture on environment and economy.

"…In the protracted quarrel between the nature lovers and the money spinners, certain premises have been taken for granted: we can have a rising standard of living at the cost of destruction and pollution, or we can preserve some of the quality of the continent at the cost of material comforts. ..”

A yellowing square of newsprint fell out of an aged scrap book taken from a bulging filing cabinet. It is a random piece amongst many old fragments of decades old news. It is from the Melbourne newspaper “The Age” dated Saturday November 14, 1970 and looks to be an editorial titled "Selling the future".

The subject of the article is the 2nd Boyer lecture given by eminent economist, public servant and first governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr. H.C. (Nugget) Coombs,1906-1997. According to the article, Dr Coombs declared the choice between environment and standard of living was a “false dichotomy”.

Dr Coombs, says the article, wanted Australia to conserve the

“unique treasures of the Barrier Reef and the unique culture of the Aborigines”.

The article continues ,

“He is equally insistent that we should not join in a mad scramble to sell off the newly discovered mineral resources of the nation to foreign interests to make a quick dollar .Such behaviour, he warned, is economically irresponsible and a ‘betrayal of our heirs and successors’.

It goes on to say ‘Even recent discoveries do not guarantee that Australia has inexhaustible reserves of oil and metallic ores. To sell off our rights to these capital assets in a mood of ‘mineral madness’ is to hand over the bulk of these assets to foreign enterprises interested only in short term gains.'

According to the article, Dr. Coombs

“believes we have nothing to lose and much to gain by letting some of these resources lie undisturbed for later generations to exploit. Their market value is likely to increase as the world resources of minerals are consumed and as Australian technology improves to the point where we can process them in this country instead of selling them off for a fractional benefit”

Did Australia’s technology improve to the point where the country was able to “add value” to raw materials or did global economics get in the way of this happening or being maintained? How often now do we hear of any consideration being given to future generations and the need to leave resources for them to use? Rarely, I would say. What I am hearing now is that Australia’s “resources boom” might over, meaning that we are not extracting minerals as quickly as we would like, to bolster our economy.

Oil production in Australia has been declining for at least 10 years. Where will this leave future generations? We cannot be confident that this resource will not be needed in the light of perfected “renewables”.

The old "Age" article continues with Coombs’ thoughts:

“In the meantime , our techniques for preserving and conserving the natural environment must improve. We are still in the very early stages of developing a balanced programme of ecology and if we are too greedy we may do harm which can never be repaired.”

I wonder what Coombs would say about the environment reports that have come out from the various states in the last 20 years. Environment is not important to governments today.

This has been expressed again very clearly by the Victorian government having very recently tucked Environment in with Primary Industry.

Apart from the possible conflict between the 2 sections, environment is ultimately all we have. It should have a department all its own!

Again from the editorial -

“As chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, Dr. Coombs has his own close and studied interest in the preservation of the first human culture in this continent. Before making any further decisions on the mining of Aboriginal reserves, people in power should carefully ponder the question which he asks ‘by what calculus can one assess the relative importance of instant profits from the dispersal of wasting assets against the destruction of a way of life unique in the world?’ "

'This is not the kind of talk used in elections; it is a long sighted view of the future of the this country, as well as its immediate economic needs. Politicians on both sides of the fence would do well to read this paper and treat it with the seriousness due to a major national problem. It not only affects our lives but the lives of our children.'

The grandchildren and even great- grand children of the adults who cast their eyes over this editorial back in 1970 are now here. Have the intervening generations done the right thing by them?

At the time the article was written, the largest concentration of rock art in the world - an amazing gallery of aboriginal observation and history on the Burrup Peninsula, Dampier Archipelago - had barely been discovered. In the meantime it has been severely compromised through industrial and infrastructure projects.

Thank goodness in 2008, the Australian Government placed 90% of the remaining rock art areas of the Dampier Archipelago on the National Heritage List.

Would Coombs be pleased with the degree to which Australia adds value to its mineral exports? The iron ore that Australia exports now has a much higher phosphorus ad silica content than previously, suggesting that the highest quality ore has already been mined - an indication that we have not been thinking of future generations.

I imagine Coombs was already horrified at the time he died with the destruction of Australia’s environment and we are now 16 years further down that path of environmental destruction.

What is interesting is that “The Age” back in 1970, thoughtfully conveyed Coombs’ Boyer lecture, so remote from immediate economic considerations in its editorial.

Has the prospect of global temperature rises between two and six degrees centigrade got you down? Don’t worry, for the world might well be in for a cooling trend. The kind that comes after the planet is enveloped in a canopy of ash and debris following a thermo-nuclear war.

Has the prospect of global temperature rises between two and six degrees centigrade got you down?

Are you like me? Do you hate hot humid summers that never end? Do you toss and turn in the night, soaked in sweat, not finding relief, even in the darkest basement or under the shade of the biggest tree? Don’t worry, for the world might well be in for a cooling trend. The kind that comes after the planet is enveloped in a canopy of ash and debris following a thermo-nuclear war. You see, nuclear winter, the bogeyman you thought had gone into permanent retirement when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet empire bit the dust, is still on the menu.

For those who lost the recipe, let me tell you how we can rustle up some nuclear winter in time for dinner. It’s quick, it’s easy, and you don’t have to be a professional chef to pull it off. Just follow Chris Clugston’s Scarcity> Conflict Cook Book. (cf. “Scarcity”)

“If you like mushrooms, you’ll love mushroom clouds! Nuclear winter is a cool summer treat...And its easy to make....Just follow Chris Clugston’s recipe, let me show you how!”

The first ingredient is a hopeless economic dependence on natural non-renewable resources (NNRs). That’s easily found, especially in North America, Europe and the emerging economies of China and India. Secondly, it is important that there not be enough NNRs to satisfy the growing appetites of all those nations which demand them. Again, no problem there. Seventeen remaining global NNR reserves will be exhausted within 25 years. We are talking about trifling things like antimony, arsenic, barite, cadmium, fluorspar, gold, iron ore, lead, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, rhenium, silver, strontium, tin, zinc and zirconium. Those kind of things we can do without---that is, unless we live in an industrial civilization. And then there is boron, magnesium, mercury , phosphate rock, the platinum group metals, selenium and vanadium---which will be exhausted within 41 to 61 years. And beyond that, bromine, cement, lime, potash, rare earth minerals, salt and soda ash will be not be economically available.

But wait, I know what you’re thinkin’. We are an exceptional species. We are ingenious. Our brains are designed to work around limits. We will think of something. After all, we always have, haven’t we? We can develop “renewable energy”. Sorry to rain our your parade, but Dawn Stover said it best:

“Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed...” Geothermal, wind, hydro power and biomass? “All of these technologies also require electricity transmission from rural areas to population centers. Wilderness is not renewable once roads and power-line corridors fragment it. And while proponents would have you believe that a renewable energy project churns out free electricity forever, the life expectancy of a solar panel or wind turbine is actually shorter than that of a conventional power plant. Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years. So what, exactly, makes renewable energy different from coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power?

Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world's total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today's largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That's a heckuva lot of neodymium.

Unfortunately, "renewable energy" is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven't discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.” from The myth of renewable energy of 22 Nov 11 by Dawn Stover http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy

Sorry Peak Oilers but I guess it isn’t all about oil---or energy---after all. We need all those other 69 natural non-renewable resources that Chris Clugston inventoried---unless you think that solar panels, turbines, and drills etc can be made from mud and straw.

But back to Clugston’s Cook Book. We have the first of our ingredients----the non-renewable resources which are in terminal decline, and the second, which is the fact that there won’t be enough of them to go around to satisfy everybody---particularly the industrial giants---and the ones like America which is rapidly losing its stature. The third ingredient is import dependency, or in Clugston’s parlance, “potential geopolitical supply constraints”. This is the most active and critical ingredient in the whole mix. It is not so much that dwindling supplies of non-renewable resources will not be domestically available, but that many of them that will still be available are found in the most inconvenient places---for the United States at least. Politically unstable or unfriendly places.

For starters, about 80% of the world’s proven oil resources are located in the Middle East. And then there is the stuff that is used in essential infrastructure. 83% of abrasives come from China. 72% of boron reserves are found in Turkey. 75% of proven Chromium reserves are found in South Africa and Kazakhstan. 84% of clay imports come from Brazil. Half the cobalt is located in the Congo. 40% of the copper comes from Chile. China is the third largest producer of gypsum, Iran the third. China is the world’s leading steel producer and accounts for 40% of global lead mine production, 40% of proven global molybdenum reserves, 65% of the world’s silicon, and together with Indonesia, they produce 40% of the world’s tin. 40% of the world’s vanadium is produced by China and South Africa, 68% of US zinc ore imports come from Peru and 52% of titanium sponge metal imports come from Khazakhstan.

Then there are the NNRs that the United States imports to support industrial agriculture. 72% of its boron comes from Turkey. 50% of proven manganese reserves come from South Africa and the Ukraine. 100% of its phosphate rock is imported from Morocco. And to make your computer, IPhone and tech toys, 51% of US antimony comes from China, plus 86% of its arsenic, 58% of its beryilium from the Ukraine, and half the proven indium reserves are found in China. In fact, of the NNRs which the United States requires to make high tech electronic devices, 28 of them are imported from potentially volatile or unreliable sources. And 17 of those imported 28 NNRs supply more than 79% of American requirements. (cf. Scarcity, Humanity’s Final Chapter, pp. 52-57)

This roll-call of vulnerability is by no means exhaustive. But you get the picture. Without the United States Navy to impose its power and police the seaways, it is unlikely that you could drive your car to the local shopping centre to buy your latest gadget or load up on groceries. You know, that car with the “End the Iraq War” bumper sticker on it. (Never mind. Dump the car, live off the grid and wear a Ghandian loin cloth if that fits the image you want to project. But spare me your hypocrisy. You aren’t baling out of the industrial system or your dependence on the violence it’s built on.)

What happens when somebody threatens to deprive a fading superpower with a trillion dollar military budget of its supply of essential NNRs? What did Japan do when the United States cut off 90% of its oil in 1941? In the last century, resource wars claimed the lives of over 100 million people, but in this century, the arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can destroy our species, and a good many innocent bystanders as well.

So in case you didn’t make notes, here again is the formula for our demise, a recipe for nuclear winter in a nutshell:

Take 69 non-renewable natural resources that have already peaked , any one of which can cripple our industrial economy and for which no conceivable alternatives can collectively be found.

Add accelerating scarcity of those resources.

Throw in a pinch of dependence by militarily lethal powers on foreign imports from unstable and/or potentially hostile regions....

And PRESTO---- you have a nuclear exchange, which according to Paul Ehrlich, need only be a limited one between say, India and Pakistan, to finish off humanity.

Nuclear winter would ensue and I suspect, the hospitality industry on the Gold Coast or the beaches of Florida or the Algarve would have its worst season on record. Damn, there goes your tan. You worked hard for your vacation, and as a North American, it was your entitlement. Life is so unfair.

And here you were worried about climate change. I guess Matthew 6:34 was right after all. Don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. And all of humanity apparently.

Think positive thoughts. Put on a happy face. Something will turn up. It always has, has it not? Cassandras are such a drag.... Oh, I am such a downer. No wonder the girls don’t ask me out.

Tim Murray

December 1, 2011

In the following article, originally published in the Winter 2008 issue of The Independent Australian magazine, Dr John O'Connor draws attention to Professor Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive and the chapter in it specifically on Australia and its overpopulation woes.

Jared Diamond on Australia's Sustainable Population

By Dr John O'Connor

Perhaps the single most astonishing, ridiculously contradictory set of public policies we face, is the left hand of government promoting reduced greenhouse emissions, conservation of diminishing freshwater, soil fertility and other declining natural resources, while the right hand promotes rapid population growth through high immigration.

Is this a classic example of the left hand not knowing (or wanting to know) what the right hand is up to? One well-disposed but concerned observer from abroad (a frequent visitor to our shores) is the United States’ Professor Jared Diamond, author of (inter alia) the very influential Guns, Germs and Steel (1997). This treatise is a convincing science-based exposition of the geographical and environmental reasons for the technological ascendancy of European nation-states during the second millennium, in addition to the usual social and other reasons advanced by historians. It traces humankind’s global history since the appearance of agricultural settlements in the Middle East “fertile crescent”, Nile and Indus valleys and China, wherever our ancestors encountered domesticable animal and plant species, and the consequent spread of agriculture-based societies throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas.

Prof. Diamond has since published Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (Penguin, 2005: 574 pp) which includes a chapter, "Mining Australia" (38 pp) deserving the most serious consideration by any Australian government, regardless of its party political social theories. In this tour de force, he reviews the reasons for the disintegration of cultures with legacies of abandoned ruins in Norse Greenland, Anasazi Chaco Canyon, Rapa Nui (Easter Island) and other Pacific Islands, in Mayan Yucatan, and elsewhere. These reasons - mainly overpopulation and irrational actions driving local environmental degradation - have also played their part in modern tragedies including the Rwandan genocide and the impoverishment of nations such as Haiti, while neighbour states (eg. Dominican Republic) prosper. The prospects for nations including China, the United States, and others subject to environmentally disastrous values, with failure to recognise or anticipate the consequences of irrational political policies and unsuccessful remedies, are comprehensively brought into focus.

He sees Australia, not as a nation facing imminent collapse, but as the first world’s miners’ canary: a developed country facing a rapid decline in living standards as its burgeoning population outstrips its rapidly degrading natural resource base. After consulting widely with government authorities, academics (including Tim Flannery) and grassroots farmers, graziers, and Landcare-type groups, Jared Diamond compares us with other nations, past and present. He details our problems of soil fertility and salinization, land degradation, diminishing freshwater resources, distance costs, over-exploitation of forests and fisheries, importation of inappropriate European agricultural values and methods and alien species, trade and immigration policies. He concludes that the mining of our natural resources - their unsustainable exploitation at rates faster than their renewal rates since European settlement began - gives us the dubious distinction of ”…illustrating in extreme form the exponentially accelerating “horse race” in which the world now finds itself……on the one hand, the development of environmental problems……on the other hand, the development of public environmental concern, and of private and governmental countermeasures. Which horse will win? Many readers……will live long enough to see the outcome.”

Specifically, he concludes:

”Contrary to their government and business leaders, 70% of Australians say that they want less rather than more immigration. In the long run it is doubtful that Australia can even support its present population: the best estimate of a population sustainable at the present standard of living is 8 million people, less than half of the present population.”

The reasons supporting this alarming prognosis (how long is “the long run”?) are very briefly summarised as follows.

• Non-sustainability: ”At present rates, Australia’s forests and fisheries will disappear long before its coal and iron reserves, which is ironic……the former are renewable but the latter aren’t.” And: ”While many other countries are mining their environments……among First World countries, (our) population and economy are much smaller and less complex than……the U.S., Europe or Japan……the Australian situation is more easily grasped.”
• Exceptional ecological fragility: ”…the most fragile of any First World country except perhaps Iceland……many problems that could eventually become crippling in other First World countries and already are so in some Third World countries - such as overgrazing, salinization, soil erosion, introduced species, water shortages, and man-made droughts - have already become severe in Australia.”
• An informed population: we have ”……a well-educated populace…and relatively honest political and economic institutions by world standards. Australia’s environmental problems cannot be dismissed as……ecological mismanagement by an uneducated, desperately impoverished populace and grossly corrupt government and businesses……”
• Climate change: clearly exacerbating our ”obvious massive impacts on the Australian environment”.
• Australian soils, especially their low nutrient and increasingly high salt levels. Britain as a trade partner and model society have shaped Australian agricultural practices inappropriate to the Australian landscape (e.g. agricultural practices based on high-yield British soils). We inhabit ”…the most unproductive continent…soils with the lowest average nutrient levels…old, leached over billions of years…only a few small areas have been renewed by volcanic or glacial activity or slow uplift. Agriculture has therefore depended on fertilizers and cultivation of large low-yield areas, with increased machinery and fuel costs, competitive disadvantages vis-à-vis food imports, low agroforestry returns due to slow tree growth, and relatively unproductive coastal and inland fisheries due to low-nutrient runoff.
• Salinity, i.e. salt mobilization. Increasingly, low soil nutrient fertility is worsened by salt, from three causes: sea-salt blown inland over south-west W.A. wheat belt; repeated past marine inundations of the Murray-Darling basin and evaporation of inland lakes; mobilisation of salt by land clearance and irrigation agriculture. ”Salinization…already affects about 9% of all cleared land in Australia……projected under present trends to rise to about 25%.” And: ”The total area in Australia to which salinization has the potential for spreading is more than 6 times the current extent and includes a 4-fold increase in W.A., 7-fold increase in Queensland, 10-fold increase in Victoria and 60-fold increase in New South Wales.”
• Fresh water as a population-limiting factor: ”Australia is the continent with the least of it.” Most readily accessible water is already utilised - domestic, agriculture and industry. For instance, our largest river, the Murray/Darling, has two thirds or more of its flow drawn off each year (in some years no water is left to enter the ocean), and becomes progressively saltier downstream towards Adelaide, with increased burden of pesticides from cotton farming and irrigation practices. Further high-energy desalination plants now seem inevitable for urban requirements. Historically, “Australian land use has gone through many cycles of land clearance, investment, bankruptcy and abandonment” from early colonial times, due to low soil productivity and a disproportionately large fraction of pastoral and arid lands subject to low-average unpredictable unreliable rainfall. This is due to the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) climatic factor, resulting in uncertain crop returns, bare soil, and consequent soil erosion and salinization. South Australia’s Goyder Line and parts of Western Australia’s Gascoigne provide two of many examples.
• The “tyranny of distances”, imposing large extra costs, both within Australia and between our trading partners. These costs also mitigate against medium-sized towns, producing the world’s most urbanised nation (about 60% of us dwell in the 5 major cities).
• Introduced species: cattle and sheep have been of great economic value, while also damaging fragile ecosystems. Whereas rabbits, foxes, cane toads, carp, feral buffalo, camels, donkeys, horses, goats, blackberry, “Paterson’s curse”, mimosa in Kakadu, and other weed species (about 3000, alone causing economic losses of about $2 billion annually), are expensive disasters.
• Land clearance (encouraged by tax incentives), overstocking and overgrazing have resulted in dryland salinization, soil erosion and land abandonment. ”Rotting and burning of the bulldozed vegetation (in 2005) contribute to Australia’s annual greenhouse emissions a gas quantity approximately equal to the country’s total motor vehicle emissions.”
• Marine overfishing: species which have been “mined” to uneconomically low levels include coral trout, eastern gemfish, Exmouth Gulf tiger prawns, school shark, southern bluefin tuna, tiger flathead, and orange roughy. Damage to freshwater fisheries, e.g Murray cod and golden perch, may also be irreversible.
• Forestry: with only 25% of 1788 forests remaining intact, and still being mined, half our export products are wood chips (as low as $7 per ton) sent mostly to Japan, where the resulting paper sells for $1000 per ton; we import nearly 3 times our forest products exports, one-half as paper and paperboard products. ”One expects to encounter that particular type of trade asymmetry ……when an economically backward non-industrialised unsophisticated Third World colony deals with a First World country……buying their raw materials cheaply, adding value……and exporting expensive manufactured goods to the colony.”
• Trade: ”In short, over the past half century Australia’s exports have shifted from predominantly agricultural products to minerals, while its trade partners have shifted from Europe to Asia.” We are exposed to unprecedented new national security and economic factors.
• Population policy: ”The fallacy behind the policy of “filling up Australia”, despite ”compelling environmental reasons” to the contrary, arises from our aspirations for national security and economic power (with only a few millions each, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Singapore already outstrip us, implying that quality is more important than quantity?) Some politicians and business leaders still call for a population of 50 million, regardless of our declining natural resource base! This may rapidly convert us to “a net food importer rather than exporter of food”, in a world already struggling to feed an expanding population of some 6.6 billion. It will also dilute our per capita earnings from mineral exports.

Professor Diamond sympathetically reviews the many remedial policies, individual and group activities which are attempting to control these and other problems. No doubt some items need some up-dating. But his main point remain valid: because it is all happening so rapidly here, he regards our nation as a warning and an example to the developed world. For this reviewer, one local need stands out above all others: the need for a rational population policy, with numbers in balance with our diminishing natural resource base, having due regard for limiting factors listed above. Indeed, this need applies not only to Australia, but to our Earth entire, recently imaged by the outbound Voyager 2 space probe as a single pale blue pixel, a dust mote suspended in a sunbeam. On this damaged dust mote, we and our descendants will continue our species’ history, our unfolding comprehension of our origin, present existence and attainable future. Or so we hope.

Dr John O'Connor had 25 years lecturing, research (specialising in air pollution, plant stress), and consultancies (government and industry) in the environmental sciences. Now retired, he is active part-time in adult education. When submissions were called for the 2020 Summit, he sent in a précis of Diamond's chapter on Australia.

July 2008

Lampedusa is a tiny Italian island near Malta. It is located 205km from Porto Empedocle in Sicily, 167km from Tunisia and 167km from Libya. It has only 6,000 permanent inhabitants. With the recent failure of Libya to honour a 2004 agreement the Island's resources are being overwhelmed by clandestine immigrants from Africa en-route to Europe.

The immigrants come through Lampedusa, as if through a permanently open door. They do not want to stay too long. Their objective is to go somewhere else, to the rich cities of the north of Italy or of Europe. It is a problem for the European Community, as much as Italy's problem.

At the beginning of July, 1000 clandestine immigrants reached the shores of this little island, in just 12 hours. Two women died, one was pregnant.

The Mayor of Lampedusa Bernardino De Rubeis comments: "It is an uninterrupted influx, we cannot cope. The immigrants are escaping war or famine. This is the nearest port from North Africa, that is why they all end up here. And here nothing functions anymore: the rubbish collection, the sewers, the water supply, the hospital. With 6,000 inhabitants plus the tourists, we must ration even the water to provide for the immigrants. The desalination plant cannot cope. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other refugees ready to leave from Libya."

Another official asks for the help of the European Commission, but what Italy gets is criticism for its handling of the emergency that has overpowered the Italian Government, accused of racism.

Nobody criticises the Libyan Government for not respecting previous accords with the last Government, which included the surveillance of the coast, especially the port of Zwara, from where the immigrants leave, undisturbed and uncontrolled by the Libyan authorities.

During the night about twenty clandestines, escaped the Immigration Centre and terrorized the locals by going into shops to buy alcoholic beverages, and then getting drunk.

The island is torn between immigrants, inhabitants and tourists, because the resources do not grow with the growth of the population, a truth that is ignored at our peril, even at the global level.

However, if we do the numbers, we find out that every clandestine immigrant brings the Immigration Centre 36€ a day. Every day in Lampedusa there are about 400 clandestine immigrants, which means about 60,000€ a day, all in the pockets of the association "Lampedusa accoglienza" (Lampedusa Reception) which administers the Centre.

A new business.

See also: Migrant swell hits Lampedusa of 31 Jul 08, About 800 illegal immigrants land in Southern Italy of 31 Jul 08, Malta receives proportionately 18 times more migrants than Italy of (undated) from the Malta Independent, Italy: 1,000 illegal immigrants moved from overflowing holding centre of 1 Aug 08, Boat migrants swamp Italian island of 31 Jul 08.