Baby bribery

“Dump baby bonus, says Anglican Church’s key advisory group”, Herald-Sun, 28/4 (ABC article also). This proposal by (surprisingly) a religious organization drew much controversy. Unfortunately the wasteful bonus looks here to stay, with both major political parties (Labor and Liberal) saying they would not abolish it – despite the considerable savings to be made if they did (278,000 baby bonus payments paid out last year at $5294 each equals nearly $1.5 billion!). They would not then have to cut medical research funding as the upcoming Budget threatens – a shortsighted policy if there ever was. I suppose they are more afraid of losing votes. Sadly, issues involving reproduction seem to bring out the worst irrationality in humans.

“Big Melbourne isn’t to be feared, you might find it’ll grow on you”, The Age, 23/4. An utterly deluded piece of drivel! He shares the bizarre conviction that bigger is better, despite the misery this policy inflicts on those living in the affected city. He does admit, almost as an aside:

Admittedly, the advent of 605,000 extra Melburnians since 2001 creates problems: worsening traffic, crowded trains and insufficient housing supply has driven prices to ludicrous heights. But for all the whingeing, the positives of the Big Melbourne far outweigh the negatives.

Oh no they don’t, mate!

“China’s crop supply dries up, spurring global prices”, 19/4. As China’s population increases, it is losing farmland – a lot of this due to urban growth. Perhaps one ultimate solution would be genetically-modified and processed algae for consumption (as I have read in a sci-fi novel or two, and was mentioned in the Avatar movie).

The factories sprawling from Jinan city, 350 kilometers (220 miles) south of Beijing, put Zhao on the front line of a clash between a policy of food self-sufficiency and industrial growth that made China the world’s second-biggest economy. Industrialisation is winning, signaling prices for crops like wheat and corn will rise as China is increasingly unable to feed itself and vies for supplies on global markets.

On a slightly different note, the parasitical organizations otherwise known as hedge funds can only see this as an opportunity for profit:

“China’s increased demand for agricultural commodities will mean an increase in prices for the entire world market,” said David Stroud, chief executive officer of New York-based hedge fund TS Capital Partners. “China can outlast any other bidders for the commodities it desires.” Investors should bet on crops in shortest supply in China, with wheat and corn now offering the best opportunities, he said.

In other words, they seek to profit from others’ misery.

“World’s future is a crowded place”, SMH, 30/4. An overview of the world’s increasing population and the issues involved. Though they seem overly optimistic; 9 billion is still a huge burden on the environment. Countermeasures such as educating women and giving them access to family planning are one way to combat growth, but it is too slow (over decades) and does not always work – as the many “educated” women in Australia having 3+ children demonstrate. Food shortages will be an issue. The well-worn example of the world’s population fitting into a given area is stated yet again, but this is utterly irrelevant to reality.

The world’s current population could stand, shoulder to shoulder, inside the borders of greater Sydney. That means there is enough land for all: how much they consume is the problem. Graeme Hugo warns that population reduction is not a silver bullet: “You need good environmental policy as well as good population policy.”

Much of that land is desert or otherwise unlivable, and reducing consumption can only go so far. Population reduction is ultimately the only sustainable solution.

Collected letters:

29/3:

High price of growth

The real impediment to fair housing prices is our population growth, boosted by immigration. Manipulating demand to outstrip supply means that competition for housing guarantees rising prices. The demand is ongoing and guaranteed.

Once petrol prices rise above $2 a litre, those who have bought in semi-rural and outer suburban areas will be punished due to lack of public transport.

The lack of true industry and manufacturing in this state means an unhealthy reliance on population growth. It is unsustainable and misanthropic – environmentally, socially and economically.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

10/4:

Big not best

RE: “Bleak houses: debt, welfare crisis in the suburbs” (3/4). A study in 100 of the largest US cities last year examined the relationship between growth and economic prosperity to determine whether certain benefits commonly attributed to growth are supported by statistical data.

The study found that faster growth rates were associated with lower incomes, greater income declines, and higher poverty rates. Unemployment rates tended to be higher in faster-growing areas. The 25 slowest-growing cities outperformed the 25 fastest-growing in every category. The findings raise questions about the policy of conventional urban planning and economic development strategies that pursue relentless growth of metropolitan areas.

An economy based on perpetual growth, and exploitation of finite resources, does not produce prosperity but rather redistributes earnings from the majority into the pockets of the elite.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

20/4:

Growth has limits

Treasurer Kim Wells said the state government would no longer be able to rely on booming house prices for windfalls, meaning developments that depend on population growth (“Victoria faces bleak budget”, The Age, 19/4).

Our politicians forget that infrastructure and public services must also grow along with population, and this costs money. Population growth only gives a shot-in-the-arm for big businesses and state coffers. It means larger long-term spendings.

The engine room of economic growth should be based on production, skills, higher education, innovation and manufacturing, not on dead-end and fatalistic routes of revenue collecting.

There are limits to physical growth. However, there are no limits to the growth of ideologies and ideas – something of which our leaders seem to be bereft.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

21/4:

Greed is big and only getting bigger

THE housing market in Melbourne is driven by two factors: greed and selfishness (“Room to move, but is a bigger home better?”, The Age, 20/4). Builders are happy to construct large houses, which result in big profits, and buyers want a home cinema room, rumpus room, multiple bedrooms with ensuites, and full air-conditioning. All this will generate a carbon footprint almost four times that of my 1960s 12-square house. Add to that the huge mortgages and personal debt involved and we have a situation that is untenable.

In some ways it is already too late as the outer suburbs of Melbourne are crammed to the brim with these large houses. Often they have no backyards and children are confined to indoors and passive activities.

When I look around Wantirna South, I see a forest of trees; when I look around new outer suburbs I see a forest of roofs.

We are debating the price of carbon and the need to reduce emissions. We are still building large houses that will stress our already overloaded infrastructure. Builders will continue to pander to market forces unless they are constrained by law.

Future generations will pay a high price for this greed and selfishness.

– Peter Cossins, Wantirna South

22/4:

Recipe for gridlock

Rapid population growth and increased car ownership don’t seem to rate a mention as the basic problem regarding the “tram jam”.

In 2006 there were 2.2 million cars registered in Melbourne. Monash University researchers have estimated that, if net overseas migration continues at 180,000 per year and Melbourne continues to receive 24 per cent of the total, then, by 2036, the numbers of car owners will increase by 1.3 million. This will put 3.5 million cars on Melbourne’s roads, a recipe for total gridlock.

It’s time to scale back migration to sustainable levels and stop advertising Victoria as “the place to be”.

– Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Parkville

26/4:

Growth and gains

There are times when growth in human numbers is convenient and necessary to build up an economy of scale, to create a feasible and coherent society and justify infrastructure investments. However, over-growth is akin to obesity, or cancer, that “grows on you”. Growth over an optimum size means massive costs to re-engineer our city, outstripping funding and natural resources.

What would a bigger Melbourne (Comment, 23/4) achieve that can’t already be achieved? What’s to be gained? It’s all about those in power making more wealth from property development, and mega-stores growing and maintaining a bigger customer base. It’s not for the benefit of us, the average people, but the elite who will be shielded from the negative impacts due to their wealth.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

29/4 – in response to an article by former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks boasting of his party’s encouraging the state’s growth (despite the resulting stress and misery for those living there):

Addicted to growth

Some years ago, when sitting in a traffic jam, contemplating Melbourne’s rapidly declining liveability due to overcrowding and breakdown of public services, I listened in disbelief to Steve Bracks bragging about Victoria being the fastest-growing state. He was proud of the mess he was creating. Clearly the penny still hasn’t dropped (Comment, 28/4) .

He turned the party into a stooge of big business, the opposite of what the Labor Party is supposed to be. He lost supporters and ordinary voters because of the private profiteering and overcrowding resulting from his manic belief in development.

I wouldn’t be recommending the Labor Party turn to him for advice on how not to lose elections.

– Don Gillies, Canterbury

25/4:

Brumby didn’t plan

The article “Big Melbourne isn’t to be feared” (The Saturday Age, 22-23/4) fails to recognise that the Brumby government, while opening the doors to rapid population growth, neglected the basic infrastructure to accommodate increased numbers. We will never catch up.

Hence, until we establish a stable population, our standard of living will continue to erode as housing unaffordability increases, overcrowding of hospitals continues and traffic congestion worsens.

– Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn

12 million next goal?

The growth promoters appear to have no end point in mind as to where population growth is taking us. It’s as though talking about a mid-century population projection amounts to being a futurist.

What happens in the decades following the “achievement” of a population of 8 million for Melbourne? Do we proceed to 12 million like London and then head for Mexico City’s population, when we would have the entire current population of Australia living at high density around Port Phillip Bay and its hinterland?

Let’s hope federal minister Tony Burke can come up with an 11th hour sustainable population policy.

– Jill Quirk, president Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian Branch), Malvern East

Death knell sounds

Serendip Sanctuary at Lara is internationally valuable. Of the 171 bird species recorded at Serendip, 19 are of particular conservation significance and are listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.

Serendip is representative of a landscape type now rare in Victoria. It has recently bred the eastern barred bandicoots, a species threatened with extinction due to some of the exact threats that will be exacerbated by a higher population at Lara.

Why is the Geelong council rough-riding over such a significant conservation achievement with their approval of more than 380 high-density developments right opposite?

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights