Climate change mitigation that does not include population control is pointless

In the Pinker article "The Moral Instinct", as well as in numerous articles in the Melbourne Age relating to housing needs, population control is never mentioned.
Regardless of what inventive technologies or cultural changes are developed, they will be completely meaningless if the population continues to increase.

It is fascinating that there is a deliberate combination of suppression and self-censorship in relation to this crucial part of the solution.

Attenborough: cut population by half : Surely this convinces you !!! Attenborough brings power to the argument ..... Trust him – just like you probably trust Bob Brown for the same reasons - they both carry referent and expert power.

Stephen Digby

Water: Where is the data !

Our politicians and the organisations that are beholden to them publish millions of dollars worth of slick propaganda promoting personal political careers and selected actions.
The community is rarely provided with clear access to the key facts that inform the consideration of public policy options.

For instance, the following key data is not published on any Victorian Government or Water Authority website or publication.

Why ??????

What amount of water is reticulated in Victoria ? What is it used for ? How has the usage changed over the years ?

(See Melbourne Water Business 2006).

Why aren't these figures a prominent part of the public debate ???

This information is crucial for identifying the relative importance of and limits to water saving in various areas.
More data that the Victorian Government does not want you to see:

• What savings have been achieved over the last decade in the huge volumes of water used for irrigation which dwarf all other uses ?
• What savings have been achieved over the last decade by industry ?
  
• What is the breakdown of consumption over the last 10 years of industrial consumption e.g. types of urban and rural use, including huge users like power generators ?

All the above data seems to be missing from the government websites and the public debate.


What Proportion of water is used for various purposes in a residential home ?

Source: Riverina Water County Council

Is this correct for Melbourne ? Why is there no available data on this issue on Government or Melbourne Water sites ?

Stephen Digby

Useful References:
ABS Water Account Australia 2004-5
Water Consumption in the Home
Melbourne Catchments
Our water Our Future
Melbourne Water Consumption

Camberwell Station High Rise - Here we go again !

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Camberwell Station - Community Plan vs Goverment Plan from Marvellous Melbourne on Vimeo.
Since the 1970's the Camberwell and Boroondara community has been trying to gain some democratic control over the place where they live.  Believing in peaceful democratic processes, despite so much evidence to the contrary, the community has communicated forcefully and repeatedly that it does not want the Camberwell community transformed from a leafy low density residential areas to a high density dormitory.
The government motivation for repeatedly attempting to override the community are clear:
Demonstrate that communities around the state are powerless to control their destiny and should be content to limit their decisions to selecting the colour of rubbish bins.
Enrich speculators on the proviso that they pack in more people in spots where the government has little support to lose.
Build to the skyline in communities that are affluent enough to pay for the infrastructure flow on that this population influx will cause (who do you think will be paying for the upgrade of the 100 year old sewerage system now that it has maxed out !).

Stephen Digby

Population increases require environmental degradation

Average Melbournian's are told they need to get used to: tolls on public roads; synthetic grass for children's playgrounds; recycled water for drinking; high density development shadowing every suburb; living in flats because land is made so expensive etc etc. Just remember that none of these restrictions will apply to those who can pay - such as the politicians and leaders that call for them. Just remember that all these problems are by-products of an addiction to growth. Just remember that our government encourages this degradation because growth is the only short term fix that will pay the interest on public, corporate and private debt. Just remember, that regardless of how much quality of life we sacrifice, growth is unsustainable. One day we may get leaders who will realise the need to plan for improvement instead of growth.

Stephen Digby

"Growth" and "Develpment" - the twin evils

The "inconvenient solution' to the planetary problems that beset us is of course "sustainability".

The planetary problem lies in the cross-cultural pervasiveness of the deadly enemies of sustainability - "growth" and "development".
Unfortunately, the "haves" in all human societies preserve their position only by encouraging the "have nots" to fantasise that they will benefit eventually from growth and development. The aspirations of the common people in China and India are likely to accelerate this planetary destruction. The "developed" world is still in denial thinking of more and more irresponsible ways to achieve the ludicrous goal of "sustainable growth".
Politicians get ever more strident as they want you to accept props to the continued insanity of growth such as nuclear power, recycled water, ever higher density housing, These "developments" are far more like a desperate fix for a addiction, than ecologically desirable and sustainable improvements for the planet.

Punish or protect ? Councils that "protect" trees out of existence...

The proposed control will serve the developers purpose perfectly. THEY will not be constrained as they will be merely get a paid arborists report that no council oficer would dare to negate (or spend our money repudiating). Failing this they will go to VCAT and get what they want. They will also win because the rest of the community will do the work of maintining the remaining leaves under close bureacratic supervision from an even more bloated and officious council.

The developers will also win as the community will again be lulled into a false sense of security (as we see from the letters columns and this discussion) that this regulation will actually affect the real plunderers...

This regulation is designed to make 2030 look more palatable ! There is no consideration of changing the site coverage back to reasonable percentage. There is no consideration of supporting trees with a council blanket cover for tree related damage or injury etc etc..

This proposal is the worst type of bureacracy - pointless, expensive and directed at all when the target should be the few.

Speech by Stephen Digby to Public Hearing by Camberwell Council regarding a proposed "Tree Protection" bylaw - Monday, 28 August 2006

Quick Guide on how to anger residents…..
· Step 1: draft a bylaw that appoints a council officer as arbiter of the aesthetics of our back yards while the council allows hideously inappropriate developments within and creeping out from our commercial zones. They can’t improve the taste of developers but they can supervise yours !
· Step 2: Draft a by-law that requires council officers to maintain registers; inspect pruning and lopping where they feel like it; write notices of instruction; keep records of their decisions
· hold meeting about their decisions (probably with lawyers !). All while council merrily increases our rates. “Public service” starts to stand for an empire of interference by an officious super nanny.
· Step 3: draft a by-law substantially similar to previous proposals that encountered great community opposition. Sir Humphrey Appleby certainly has remarkable patience and persistence in getting his way in the face of ignorant electors
· Step 4: draft a by-law knowing that, not only will if annoy, inconvenience and cost residents, but that it will NOT solve the real problem. Residents know that the real problem is the ability of developers to raze a home to the ground when it covers less than half the land, and profit from the 2030 law by covering the “lot” with buildings so that there is no change of a real garden with significant trees
In Summary, this law is bureaucratic in the extreme; ineffectual in that any developer will exploit its many escape clauses; anti-democratic in that Sir Humphrey proposes to propose it until we damn well give in
So what is the alternative ?
Let's accept that the council is impotent in addressing the real issues i.e. the Bracks Government taking over planning controls (like Kew, Tooronga, and soon the junction and even the Station), and the Bracks government stacking the VCAT board to make a joke of council planning decisions.
The Boroondara Action Group (BRAG) has many alternative suggestions for improving our leafy suburb. These have been collected from interested residents who take action for themselves as well as supporting us in many campaigns.
Alternatives to ineffectual bureaucracy are many - and include:
- tree protection triggered by any change in ownership or land use so that developers are targetted
If the council wants to acknowledge that trees grown by residents on private land have contributed to the community, then why not help the tree growing residents rather than penalising them:
- rate relief to reward and encourage those that maintain a significant canopy tree cover - sort of Camberwell Carbon credits !
- support for tree growers such as seedlings, tree management, tree pruning.

I recommend that you reject this costly window dressing that paints the Camberwell gardener as the culprit, and send a message to the council to get off the back of the responsible tree growing residents and do what they are paid for: Find a way to address the destruction of trees by overdevelopment all over Boroondara.

Nuclear Power needed to feed the growth addiction

The re-invention of the nuclear industry is being sold as the great hope for powering the third world into the same consumption patterns that we enjoy. They are hoping that we will feel that denying the third world this power (look at the religious nut, Ahmadinejad peddling this line, so he can get a bomb to hasten the return of Mohammed).
The best strategy to oppose the insanity of growth is to continue to oppose the nuclear power industry.

Global warming is (hopefully) the great key that will at last give the anti-growth component of the conservative green and anti-globalisation movements more power.

Growth addiction trumps democracy

The Beattie government of the state of Queensland in Australia wasted no time in showing its contempt for democracy after the defeat of the proposal to feed Toowoomba residents recycled sewerage water.
In response to the local community rejection, the government immediately announced that it would arange a new poll involving a larger area to overrule the community vote.

This approach is symptomatic of the widespread trend to consider that the people are merely cyphers for the plans of their elected leaders. If the community rejects one of our propsals, we will use their money and resources to bring it up again and again until the opposition is exhausted.

Usually there is a decent interval to give the appearance that the proposal need to be revisited due to changed circumstances since the last vote. In this case, there is no such pretence. There is perceptible anger that the people dared to reject the well thought out plans for their future made by their betters.
This behaviour is repeated countless times in countless countries, states and municipalities around the world. As democracy is considered to be a poor guide to the solution of complex problems, managerialism becomes paramount. Managers will do anything to keep the business on course for growth. Democratic leaders would consider that their role is to give power to the voice of the people - not thwart it.
In your local area - in your state - in our country, are you governemed by "elected representatives" with your interests at heart or "managers" who decide what is best for you ?

Over Development Risks Tree Loss

Recycled Sewerage to drink - growth demands a different solution !

The heroin addict is so desperate to get a fix that responsible or even rational behaviour is forgotten. Only the presence of the drug can restore their sense of normality.

The growth addicts are the same. The trouble is that they are so numerous - possibly a majority of Australians. "Without continued growth, the world will fall apart !" "Growth = development = progress = ?"
The toxic effects of growth addiction take many forms. In Toowoomba, it is the desperate proposal to use recycled sewerage for drinking water. In Canberra, another desperate proposal is being developed to feed insatiable growth with irresponsible development of nuclear energy. In most local communities, there are a myriad of smaller issues where we are being given the same message - "There is no other way !" "Future development requires our sacrifice now !"
Ask yourself, why is it that so many modern "developments" are reluctantly accepted in "this day and age" rather than welcomed and celebrated. The reason is that most "development" is not progress at all. It is the addict's reluctant stooping - giving up that last assett to "feed the habit".
Toowoomba may accept the need to drink their own refined sewerage. We all should ask ourselves - what's the next sacrifice to the growth addiction

The View from the West

Many periods of history could be characterised by the sort of conflict, lack of clear vision and pessimism that dominates the "West" at the moment. If I had to characterise this period in history, I would hope that it will be remembered positively as the "death of growth" rather than the "end of nature".

We all oscillate between various priorities.

The preservation of desirable cultural relationships (some are using distasteful terms such as "social capital") is a similar priority to preservation of diversity and counterbalances in ecology.

I see the need to assist Africa is a more function of the need to pre-empt a "trouble spot" that may destabilise our world rather than a moral imperative. Individuals and states behaviour as if they believe this even if their cultures demand that they speak differently. Contributions to these countries are minuscule and tokenistic compared to the resources that would be available if we really felt that people in a far lands were actually our brothers, sisters or children.

Biological "Circles of concern" insulate us from feeling, in any real sense, the literally unimaginable tragedies that unfold there every day. We oscillate in our concern depending on the latest news story, fundraising angle, or "natural" catastrophe.

The capacity of humans to be motivated "high in the head" is evident in a small minority of people a small minority of the time. Most people, if threats begin to penetrate their "circles of concern", quickly become "energised" by the "furnaces".

The challenge of civilisation lies in pleasing and appeasing all (easier the more monoculture the civilisation or the more powerful the hegemony) to avoid the furnace igniting.

This is "the way the world is". The history of this "crooked timber" is evidence of this throughout the ages. The Catholics have it right - we are all sinners. Optimism comes not from a belief in a future utopia run by "straight timber" - but from personal transcendental experiences such as faith (political, religious, etc), love (of children, music) and charity (gifts without expectation of thanks OR transformational effect).

To see the world in term of enlightenment" and "reaction" is to believe in the possibility of a "true" direction. This is the "root of all evil" - in fact money (= development) is often proposed as the new "true direction" for the planet as though this will solve more problems that it will create.

Even though this has been the truth in the past, I believe it to be false for the future .

Tree Protection Laws - An exemplary case of good intentions making bad policy...

In response to Boroondara Council proposals to control pruning and removal of trees.

A Leafy Middle Class Suburb in Melbourne Australia is following the international trend of punishing the innocent because of their own inability to control the guilty....

The Law sets out to protect the "Leafy Suburb" of Camberwell by bringing the management of all trees of certain size or character under the protective control of the council. Great Idea ? A superficial and simplistic reading would say "yes". I would say a resounding "NO !" for a range of reasons...

Council bureaucracy is already vastly overdeveloped and costing residents more and more for "non core" business - everything from international trips for the CEO to encouragement of cultural diversity. Who the hell do they think they are ? The UN ?
One strategy to ensure the bureaucracy grows (and thus broaden and raise the career possibilities for officers) is to create more and more regulations that require information collection, issuing of permits, site inspections, conflict resolution, fee collection, etc etc.
Tree registers and procedures are a glaring example of this type of self-serving over governance.
But what about the trees ? Tree loss is a real issue needing council action. But where are the trees being lost ? The overwhelming losses occur due to the council's inability to do its core job of preventing overdevelopment of house blocks. I f maximum site coverage was nearer 50% as it used to be, there would be plenty of room for trees !!! Now that council is allowing subdivision to cover around 80% of land, there is no room for large trees without compromising safety or building structures.
The most prevalent modern strategy for attacking community problems is to make everyone pay for the irresponsibility of the few. Think about graffiti, crime, family breakdown. Responses don't focus on correcting the deviant group, they focus on making everyone pay or change behaviour to cope in "this day and age". Tree laws are just the council's way of making everyone pay for the irresponsibility of a very few developers.
The tree laws are another example of council treating its residents like slow learners. This initiative was defeated last year through widespread community opposition. The career bureaucrat just bides his time. The proposal is reintroduced again and again. Eventually, opposing voices are literally exhausted by a process that only career bureaucrats have the time to sustain. Democracy dies. Managerialism rules.
Once again, we hope the exhausted citizen has the energy to rises from the armchair to prevent "public servants" from extending their self-serving empire.