Collected letters

Some recent newspaper letters (none mine).

The Age, 16/12:

Sorry, the eco-tooth fairy is not coming

Climate change is happening. Ask anyone in the bush. It seems as if only idiot politicians insulated from reality think that you can escape it.

I live about 100 kilometres from Melbourne on eight hectares. February taught me that I cannot rely on the CFA to come to my rescue.

I have installed sprinkler systems on my house and on my workshop, which with time, materials, and two petrol fire-fighting pumps cost about $15,000. I built myself a fire tanker from an old four-wheel-drive, with a new pump, $2000. I spent a couple of months clearing trees, undergrowth and ground litter from the fire-zone directions, which meant loss of working time. I installed a photo-voltaic electricity system, which will cost me a further $3000, after the rebate.

I drive to Melbourne, and I see the McMansions on the way. No verandas, not even eaves, relying only on cheap electricity to power their air-conditioners. I think: “I hope the price of power goes through the roof to show these fools that stupidity is not free.”

I see that these people have representatives, on both sides of the parliaments of this country, who believe in the eco-tooth fairy. I despair.

– Wolfgang Rebien, Welshmans Reef

Climate change; forget it. Population of the world in 2000, about 6 billion. 2050, about 9 billion; end of story.

– Stuart Young, Sorrento

Until politicians begin to ask how the environment can accommodate economics, rather than how economics can accommodate the environment, a sustainable future will never be realised.

– Will Hardiker, Thornbury

17/12, on the immigration scam disguised as international students:

Admission on visas

The straight-talking Indian consul-general seems to have settled in well to her life in Melbourne (“The joy of the envoy”, Insight, 12/12). What unsettles me, and I find insulting and undiplomatic, is her open admission that Indian students are here to gain permanent residency, rather than a skill.

No Australian politician seems to want to address this issue or look at the real long-term value to Australia. These trade courses do not come up to our own apprenticeship standards (even if all the colleges were well run). Thus, by definition, we are not producing skilled migrants - one of the factors on which permanent residency is based.

What is in it for Australia, apart from the course fees? Given the number of college collapses, you have to wonder how much of these fees actually remain in the country. Isn’t it about time we ended this hypocrisy?

– Graham Hogarth, Melbourne

H-S, 28/12:

Population growth bad for state

May I add to Brian Rockliff’s dismay (December 24) at the Brumby Government’s performance.

The core of Victoria’s problems comes down to the fact that the Premier is a very strong advocate of a massive population growth in the state (up to 2000 a week), and the serious side-effects this is having in unprecedented urban sprawl, traffic mayhem, water shortages, expensive housing and so on. No minister ever accepts responsibility. The most galling thing about this is that the coterie of Brumby ministers will eventually leave Parliament and be very handsomely rewarded by tax payers for the dreadful mess that this Government has created.

– Tony Davidson, Glen Waverley

Housing greed

Letters from the Herald-Sun, both concerning housing, 7/12:

Why have our regulators allowed the building of suburbs full of large homes without eaves and with no room for shade trees? These homes require air conditioners and those coolers consume energy while pumping hot air into the small gaps between the buildings. The same developments have no associated energy-efficient public transport. Contact your local councillors and representatives and demand answers and accountability, followed by the appointment of planners who know what common sense is.

– Paul Worden. Portland

I suspect such poor planning is because of corruption and influence from property developers, who can bribe councilors and politicians in developers’ favor.

16/12:

Overseas buyers swoop on homes

The decision by Kevin Rudd to eliminate any residency requirements when purchasing Australian real estate has propelled prices into the stratosphere. Even 24-hour junkets are now being organised to purchase property and then fly back over seas, particularly from China.

Any auctioneer would have noted that since March this year, when any form of residency requirement was lifted, the successful buyer was almost inevitably from overseas. How does the PM expect every day Australians to compete with a plethora of multi-millionaires? Prices have become obscene. A million dollars, or close enough to, has now become an everyday benchmark. On the basis that real estate doubles roughly every 10 years, our children can look forward to paying at least $2 million for that same property.

– Lou Coppola, Hawthorn East

I wonder if this baffling and counterintuitive decision to make the housing market even more unsustainably competitive is because the Prime Minister has contacts in China? It makes being a citizen rather pointless – why bother, when non-citizens are given the same privileges?

“High property prices should be a warning for Singaporeans”, Asian Correspondent. Singapore also has a housing affordability crisis, brought on by both inflation and overpopulation. The only people who benefit are investors (a dishonest way to make money, in my view). As pointed out, one’s house might be worth a million dollars, but it is not the same as having money in a bank that can be accessed (unless you sign up for a dubious “reverse mortgage” scheme). High property values also mean council rates go up, making life even more difficult for home owners who don’t have a high income of real money.

And as for the “net worth” of property owners going up – well, yes, that’s true. But it’s not much use to home owners, who don’t actually get that money unless they sell their house and don’t need to buy another one. The only people who really benefit from houses rising ahead of inflation are those with investment properties, and they do it at the expense of those trying to enter the market to buy one single home.

A house should first and foremost be a place to live in. The property market is corrupted by greed and is out of control, and if the government had any sense of social justice, it would abolish investor-favoring schemes such as negative gearing – and also, of course, reduce population growth so housing demand falls.

“Melbourne property market bounces back”, H-S, 21/12. I am sick of seeing articles exulting over rising house prices, this being one. The spokesperson quoted in the article is from the Real Estate Institute Victoria:

Homebuyers would face rising costs if the industry failed to build houses at a rate that matched the population growth, Mr. Larocca said.

“We would like to see an increased rate in construction of housing.

“Unless that occurs, we’re likely to see next year that prices will continue to rise,” he said.

“It really is supply and demand. While the population continues to increase unless more houses are put on the market, the demand will continue to be more pronounced.”

Well, duh, reduce population growth and you won’t have to smother more land with unsustainable housing estates?

“Homing in on the big decisions”, H-S, 1/12. Articles like this make me despair; Melbourne is on its way to becoming a nightmare megacity.

But the days of larger homes may be numbered as new home seekers are pushed farther from the city in search of affordable land. Infrastructure – public transport, schools and hospitals – are incredibly expensive and cannot keep pace. Aside from those who are willing to put up with a commute to the city of more than an hour each way, our rising population will be increasingly squashed into existing urban boundaries aided by government polices that promote higher-density living. Developers will continue knocking down existing homes to make way for multiple units, to the anger of existing home owners, who will be forced to sit back and watch as the character of their neighbourhood changes. Our way of life is about to change dramatically in the next couple of decades thanks to higher fertility rates and the government’s drive to boost our population through migration. Australia’s current population of 22 million is expected to reach 35 million by 2049. To fit everyone in, someone’s dream will have to be shattered.

“Houses too big, say Greens”, SMH, 1/12. Houses built since the 1990s have become obscenely oversized behemoths, as the Greens political party point out.

The Government should consider “putting the brakes” on developers who are building ever larger houses on relatively small lots, he said. He also believed it was time to discuss imposing limits on how large new houses could be.

Of course, some will snipe that this is “Government interference” and “social engineering”, but regulations are necessary in any society. My parents’ home – the one I grew up in (family of 4) – would be tiny by today’s standards; it was built in the late 1940s. I am not sure how many squares it is, but it is a 1-storey weatherboard with: 3 bedrooms (originally 2, before the previous owners added an extension), a hall, 1 bathroom & toilet, 1 kitchen, 1 dining room, 1 laundry, 1 living room. Admittedly an extra room or two would be nice (not to mention another toilet!) as possessions accumulate! The Google Maps image below shows the house (at bottom of picture) beside a newer (1-storey) one built a few years ago.

Freeway mania

“Frankston Bypass to bury historical remnant bush at Westerfield”, Courier-Mail, 10/12. I can only feel disgust at the Brumby Government for its obsession with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways, and this particular freeway will cut through an ecologically-significant piece of remnant bushland. No amount of compensation will make up for the loss once that ecology is gone. As it is a compulsory aquisition, the old couple who own the land appear powerless to do anything to stop it – though surely they could take their objection to court? I can see why people rebel against governments out of sheer frustration when all else fails (I am wishing for civil war against the current one). The environmental credentials of the State Government are a joke; it only cares for growing the economy and population, and placating developers and the building industry.

“Expert calls for freeway projects to be scrapped”, The Age, 3/12. No more freeways should be built until there is a comprehensive transport plan in place, and money should instead be put into rail lines. That’s a forlorn hope, however, with the current Government.

“Victorian prep classes to be at bursting point as ‘one for the country’ kids start school”, H-S, 15/12. Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello’s stupid remark in 2004 is unfortunately becoming reality as the birth rate has increased, no thanks to the baby bonus. We don’t need any more children.

China and India are, not surprisingly, among the highest source of immigrants. Both countries have such unsustainably huge populations that many have to go to other countries to find work. But they can’t expect to keep exporting their surplus people. The UK has a similar problem with its high immigration; there is a “spillover” of its citizens coming to Australia because the UK is so overcrowded. What happens when Australia in turn becomes unliveable because of growth? There is nowhere else to go.

Outspoken federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson wants immigration slashed on the basis that rampant population growth is worsening urban congestion, harming the environment and exacerbating the water shortage. But his leader, PM Kevin Rudd, is a “big Australia man”, with the Federal Government predicting the population will grow to 35 million by 2050.

Could Kelvin Thomson please run for PM? He would definitely get my vote (I certainly won’t be voting for the Rudd Government again, and the Liberals are just as bad).

“Wake-up to the opportunities in population growth”, The Age, 11/12. An utterly inane opinion by columnist Julie Szego, who believes that Australia has some moral duty to import more people because other countries have high populations.

Changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness, the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) ethos writ large. It would not help make cities more dense and habits less wasteful – quite the reverse. Lessen the pressure for change and the danger is complacency. Go down the misanthropic path and tomorrow’s suburban protesters (what, a new housing block /school/skate park? In my street?) are emboldened today.

People are NIMBYs because they want to retain their pleasant surroundings of gardens and space, not be crammed into high-density developments like battery hens. The article got a lot of scathing comments, including mine:

More people are an “opportunity”? Yes – if you don’t mind competing for dwindling living space, jobs and resources. European countries are facing social unrest from their massive immigration (remember the riots in France?). If you think population growth is a good thing, you are seriously deluded.

12/12:

Expect a backlash

Julie Szego (Comment, 11/12) provides little information as to exactly what the opportunities are in population growth. In fact by references to congestion, water shortages, fraying social fabric and greenhouse gas emissions, she gives examples of how our lifestyle will be diminished.

She holds up Spain as an example because it absorbed 2.5 million immigrants, but fails to mention the impact it had as development ran amok, corrupting local councils.

In Europe there is hardly a nation that has not experienced a backlash against immigration. Right-wing extreme parties have proliferated and violence against minorities has escalated, often because migrants have a disproportionately high level of unemployment and are forced to congregate in slums.

– Don Owers, Dudley, NSW

14/12:

Can’t cut footprint if adding more feet

I would like to correct four points in Julie Szego’s argument (Comment, 11/12) in favour of a 60 per cent population increase.

First, that “changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness”. It is the exact opposite. We should be less selfish, and share this country with our wonderful wildlife, and keep it intact for our children and grandchildren. It would be utterly selfish to ruin our country for the sake of a bigger corporate bottom line now.

Second, that my proposal to scrap the baby bonus means “the future’s no longer worth nurturing”. Wrong again. I am in favour of nurturing the future, but you do that far better by putting money into educating and training young Australians.

Third, at no stage have I proposed a Chinese-style one child policy. My plan also involves a net 70,000 migrants each year.

Finally, that “climate change is a red herring”. Nonsense. Cutting Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent or more by 2050 is made much harder by population rising by 60 per cent during that time. It’s hard to reduce your carbon footprint when you keep adding more feet.

– Kelvin Thomson, federal member for Wills

Monument to greed

Graham Reilly (Insight, 12/12) said it all. Local residents with limited resources are obliged to be the custodians of the very “soul” of each local area while developers are given free rein to push the envelope as far as possible – and beyond – to maximise profit. They’re on a “search and destroy” mission called “planning by arithmetic”.

Meanwhile, the Planning Minister happily endorses every plot to curtail the rights of residents and the already limited powers of councils, so that the “soul” of Melbourne is forever dammed to a car-packed, grey, concrete monument to greed.

The unique qualities of our suburbs are lost to what is euphemistically known as “urban renewal”. Just what is the minister renewing? He is being handed unprecedented powers over our way of life.

– Ann Reid, Malvern East

15/12:

Weight of numbers

The world’s human population is anticipated to rise quickly to at least 9 billion, but is likely to go higher if sufficient water and food can be found to sustain more people. This is easily the biggest crisis confronting humanity. All over the planet ecosystems are collapsing under the weight of human populations and species are being made extinct at cataclysmic rates.

My ancestors came here from Europe because it was overcrowded and without opportunities. They dispossessed Aboriginal populations who were living sustainably. That process continues. Why humans should decide to cram as many people on to the planet as conceivably possible is strange, given the history of overcrowding, environmental collapse, resource wars, and famines past and present.

The least we might expect is rational debate on this most important issue, not dictum from on high. Let’s think about where increased overpopulation might take us.

– Jim Walker, Caulfield

My published letter – 9/12

This was in response to a real estate ad in the previous week’s local newspaper. My letter got edited a bit.

Original version:

The full-page real estate ad in the 3/12 [local paper] that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become. Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. Population growth means overcrowding and overdevelopment, making life ever more stressful for residents. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live in. No government so far seems to have the will to implement these measures, however, by curtailing population growth.

Edited for print version:

The full-page real estate ad in the [local paper] on December 2 that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become.

Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live.

Population overload

“Population overload”, BBC Focus, issue 207. This article provides an overview of the population growth issue, and the problems facing campaigners trying to bring attention to it, noting that fewer people means other social and environmental problems can be alleviated. It also notes that even if reduction measures were put in place soon, growth would still continue for decades due to momentum:

Provided all populations reach a fertility below-replacement level, the UN projects that the world population could peak late in the 21st century, and then begin declining for the first time in hundreds of years. But to achieve that we have to put the brakes on population before 2050. The trouble is, population increase until mid-century cannot be avoided. High fertility in the past, especially in the developing world, has built an inevitable momentum that fuels population growth – like a car braking at high speed, it’s going to take longer to come to a complete stop. There is still a high concentration of women of child-bearing age alive, so even if global fertility rates suddenly dropped to replacement level, it would take ageneration or two for the population to finally stabilise.

Articles from The Age:

“Most back immigration”, 1/12: this only involved a survey of 2000 people; hardly representative. “Migration numbers at record high”, 4/12. Alarming statistics on the yearly immigration rate (500 000!) and high birth rate. This is also making housing impossibly expensive, much to the delight of greedy investors and developers, but few others.

The federal and state governments have strongly supported the surge in immigration, arguing that it adds to Australia’s skilled workforce, diversity and economic strength. Without it, the Australian economy certainly would have gone backwards in the year to June.

Never mind the damned economy, what about keeping Australia liveable?

“Giving women a choice key to family planning”, 3/12.

The key to preventing a near-doubling of global population by 2050 is to enable women in developing nations to choose the size and spacing of their families, according to the United Nations population chief. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, who heads the the United Nations Population Fund, said research showed about 235 million of the world’s women would like to cap their family sizes but had no access to family planning. Rejecting approaches such as China’s One Child policy, she said that slowing down future population growth could be achieved only through voluntary means.

Nonetheless, the world environmental situation is so dire that limits on the number of children allowed should be considered by governments, no matter how draconian this seems.

“Population control best way to cut emissions”, 4/12. A proposed scheme by the Optimum Population trust to provide contraception to people in poorer countries.

The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 ($A7) spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of carbon dioxide being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.

But clueless religious groups oppose this: “But it would be misleading if it was spent in this way. It should go to things like disaster risk reduction, food security and water.” Fewer people competing for food will mean more food and water available to go around.

Collected letters

A collection of other people’s letters on overpopulation and overdevelopment, from since the last time I wrote.

24/11:

It’s no fun living in a concrete jungle

Paul Mees (Comment, 23/11) provides logical thinking about Melbourne residential densities, transport systems and trees. Single-dwelling lots take far too much blame for our transport congestion and overpopulation problems, when they actually offer many positives socially, health-wise and environmentally.

With the past 15-plus years of increased dual-occupancy and multi-unit development of former single-dwelling lots, we have witnessed a substantial loss of large trees (up to 50 per cent in places) throughout the metropolitan area. This is leading to increased urban heat island effects and severe strains on stormwater systems and electricity demand for summer air-conditioners. We need to retain our trees and gardens (with real trees – not urban-designer toy specimens) and sanity while creating more job opportunities near our regional activity centres to reduce demand for freeways and public transport.

We might also learn to grow our own fruit and vegetables again, avoiding the greenhouse emissions and higher prices associated with buying them in supermarkets. Otherwise, “the garden state” will become “just another hot, crowded, concrete jungle”.

– Dennis Williamson, Glen Waverley

Three cheers for Mees

Suburban garden lovers and supporters of the big backyard – that Australian institution – will cheer when they read Dr.Paul Mees’ article.

Dr.Mees, Melbourne’s transport guru, turns the tables on those muddle-headed urban planners who wrongly blame our gardens and backyards for low suburban density, which is in turn blamed for poor public transport and overuse of cars.

He says that, rather, Government should tackle our dysfunctional privatised public transport.

Our great-grandparents, who left overcrowded tenements in Britain and Europe for a new life in Australia, would never have dreamt that the Government would try to get us to abandon our suburban gardens and force us into high-rise units on tram lines or next to train tracks.

– Elizabeth Jackson, Fitzroy

27/11:

Cut tax breaks

Perhaps, Ric Battellino (The Age, 26/11), the reason for the decline in first home ownership is more financial than anything else. It’s only since the reintroduction of negative gearing and the halving of capital gains tax that Australia has experienced unprecedented increases in house prices. These tax breaks, worth billions annually, perfectly suit the interests of real estate investors and speculators (who already own a home). But they have created record unaffordability for first home buyers.

– John Mason, South Melbourne

28/11:

Growth is dirty word

Tony Brittingham and Sue Packham (Letters, 25/11, 26/11) expose the core truth about our “civilisation” – limitless growth. “Changing our lifestyles” and “adjusting” to a low-carbon world means valuing a healthy global environment more than a “better (material) life” for our kids. Indeed, such an environment is a must if all kids are to live securely.

Few believe conventional “progress” is possible without economic growth. Yet this is exactly what pressures the planet, through consumption of more and more resources and energy per person.

We all need to get our heads around the psychological, existential and economic challenge symbolised by deleting growth from our list of policy, and lifestyle, assumptions. Then we might get some real leadership in confronting our dire situation, way beyond fiddling with a farcical ETS.

– Ken Blackman, Hampton

Population push

Negative gearing and the halving of capital gains are not the sole factors in rising house prices (Letters, 27/11). An increasing population also drives demand, while the cost of borrowing plays a great part in determining house prices. During John Howard’s tenure the cost of money fell substantially, which in no small measure pushed up prices.

– Tibor Majlath, Greensborough

2/12:

A stand on migrants

I was dismayed to read the article about immigration (“Most back immigration”, The Age, 1/12). There was admiration for those who are happy with high rates of immigration and an implication that those who think we have too much are racist.

I am opposed to high levels of immigration because a higher population will cause some misery to our way of life and country. I am not racist – my antecedents migrated here during each of the past three centuries – but Australia has reached a point where it has suffered enough from man.

The best and worst intentions of an educated democracy are unable to prevent further population pressures from smashing up our beautiful country. Of course, there needs to be some migration flow and refugee resettlement here. More than that may make more profits and jobs in the short term, but wither our fragile land, Australia.

– Benedict Clark, Cape Paterson

SMH, 24/11:

Breaking point

Alan Garrity’s suggestion (Letters, November 23) that Australia is underpopulated compared with North Africa is spurious. Even our small population has strained the resources of this land to breaking point, largely because of how we live and how we exploit the land to feed many more than those who live here.

I dread to think what will happen to Africa when its people raise their standard of living and start exploiting their continent the way we have exploited ours.

– David Emerson, Woolloomooloo

Herald-Sun, 30/11:

There wouldn’t be any argument about climate change if we were honest about the real threat to the planet. The world is overpopulated. But of course, fertility control is taboo.

– Peter Boardman, Frankston