Future nightmare

A brief but alarming article hidden in the depths of the 19/8 Herald-Sun:

People tipped to top 10bn

The world population will reach seven billion later this year, with increases in the number of people in Africa offsetting a drop in the birth rate elsewhere, according to a new French study.

Looking much further ahead, the National Institute for Demographic Studies predicts a continuing rise in the overall population figures until the total stabilises somewhere between nine and 10 billion worldwide by the end of the century.

The growth in the global population has been soaring since the 19^th century.

“It has increased seven fold over the last 200 years, topping seven billion in 2011, and is expected to reach nine or 10 billion by the end of the 21^st century,” the report said.

Seven countries now account for half the world’s population. China tops the list with more than 1.33 billion people, with another 1.17 billion in India. The other five countries, in order, are the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Things are bad enough now with 7 billion!

Letters in response to a 16/8 H-S article, where some lobby group (Committee for Melbourne) had the gall to suggest anti-development protest groups were responsible for unaffordable housing:

Power to the protesters

The Committee for Melbourne, with its campaign to squash more and more people into our city (“Priced out of home”, August 15), should be renamed the Committee Against Melbourne.

The UK, approximately the same size as Victoria, has 10 times our population, but more than 85 per cent of them live outside London.

We have four million people (70 per cent of our population) in our capital city, and the de velopment industry wants to squeeze in another four million, when it should be developing provincial cities.

More power to the protesters who fight to preserve our suburban gardens.

– Chris Curtis, Hurstbridge

How to make suburbs worse

So the Committee for Melbourne is bothered about subdivisions being blocked in “nice areas”.

Does it not occur to committee chief executive Andrew MacLeod that if all current residents in a particular suburb cashed in their backyards to developers, the suburb would no longer be “nice?”

The “liveability” of Melbourne is being jeopardised by the same thing that threatens reliability and quality of our food, water and energy – over population.

– Chris Hooley, Viewbank

Ugly inappropriate developments continue unabated in my suburb, and it is despairing to see. An opinion piece at CanDoBetter.net expresses the same sentiments over developments devouring what open land around Melbourne remains like a horde of locusts.

Some letters, 15/8:

Losing ground

Shaun Carney writes that we in Australia are not doing too badly (Opinion, 13/8), but there are key areas where we are behind the rest of the world.

Sweden has a small population but has one of the highest standards of living, is renowned for its top-quality scientific and technological development, and contributes 4 per cent of its GDP to research and development. The Republic of Korea has made great technological advancements in electronics, automobiles, ships, machinery, petrochemicals and robotics. Their GDP is driven by exporting manufactured products.

However, our spending is hampered by an increasing backlog of domestic infrastructure needs instead of being invested wisely to secure our future. Dividends from the resources boom, instead of being invested in R&D, communication, education and innovative knowledge-based industries, are being diverted to pay for an expanding population. We are being left behind as smaller countries progress.

– Jonathan Page, Bentleigh

Why do the world’s financial troubles get instant, remedial attention, and the far worse crises of climate change and human overpopulation don’t?

– Barbara Fraser, Burwood

17/8 – more on the Green Wedges from last entry:

Libs must stand up to pressure

The article “Libs face fund-raiser probe” (The Age, 15/8) reports on the failure to report political donations by property developers and the Liberals’ Business First group. The article said the controversy “highlighted the confluence of money, political candidates, lobbyists and property developers, especially in outer areas where re-zoning of green wedge land can be controversial”.

The sentiment echoes the findings of a recent Productivity Commission report on performance benchmarking. The commission reported that “60 per cent of Victorians felt that developers had too much influence over their developments being approved”.

Planning decisions have a profound impact on individuals and communities, permanently changing societies and the environment, to say nothing of individual financial losses. Home owners are often helpless and face a David-and-Goliath battle against well-resourced stakeholders, the developer industry and their experts. Planning is the frontline of many unfair and undemocratic practices and some serious corruption. It is where great fortunes are made.

The article also refers to Victoria’s “weak electoral laws”. The government needs to act to restore integrity to planning. A good start would be to limit and control political donations by developers, as other states have done.

– Ann Birrell, Albert Park

Affront to democracy

Planning Minister Matthew Guy says that discussion about possible changes to the Kingston Council’s urban boundary – into the south-east green wedge – “will not be open to general public submissions” (“Flight path businesses waved off”, The Age, 15/8)

Planning to consume any part of Melbourne’s “green lungs” without community consultation is an affront to democratic principles and inevitably will be limited in scope.

Green wedges are essential for a sustainable Melbourne. Analysts warn that Australia is not immune from a possible global food crisis. With food prices at record levels and with global population rising, any farmland within Melbourne’s reach should be preserved as “green” buffer zones and as a potential food source.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Healthy outlook

The green wedge regions, which offer a wonderful array of wildlife and plants, are far too important to be further fragmented by more excessive housing development. They are very important for the hundreds of thousands of people from inner Melbourne and elsewhere who bushwalk, cycle, observe wildlife, picnic, kayak, visit wineries, galleries and community markets there, and undertake numerous other activities.

All have a common objective: to leave the city and the crowds, and to slow down and connect with nature. Human beings need to get away from urban areas to keep sane and healthy in body and spirit. Such places uplift and inspire and rejuvenate people.

This unique region is also environmentally essential for the health and well-being of the city of Melbourne. But too much growth will ultimately destroy this vital habitat.

– Steven Katsineris, Hurstbridge

18/8:

Failing the forest

There’s less than 8 per cent of old-growth forest cover left in Victoria. Conservationists have identified endangered species in this area that is earmarked for logging. The Baillieu government’s response? Review the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act so that the existence of animals deemed threatened or endangered is less likely to derail logging proposals.

Just add it to the list: reassess green wedges for possible development, de-fund Environment Victoria to the tune of $1 million, let the cows back into our fragile Alpine National Park. With “leadership” like this, there’s little hope for Victoria’s environment with Ted in charge.

– Sarah Day, Brunswick

20/8:

Melbourne doomed to blanket development

There is nothing logical about the government’s “logical inclusion” of green wedges being consumed by urban sprawl (“Lib donors poised to hit paydirt”, The Age, 19/8). What is evident is that the donations given by developers to our state political parties is corrupting democratic, and consultative, planning processes.

The lack of manufacturing and industry in Victoria means that “developments” remain a vital source of employment, however unsustainable. They require perpetual population growth, and thus community needs and costs perpetuate too.

Green wedges safeguard rural and scenic landscapes, agricultural uses and water catchments. They also provide opportunities for tourism and recreation, and biodiversity.

Melbourne’s population is growing by more than 2 per cent a year, and is set to exceed 5 million by 2020.

At the very time that our need for green wedges is increasing, our access to them is decreasing.

Marvellous Melbourne is doomed to become a blanket of urban developments and endless infrastructure without softening buffer zones. Private patronage of political parties through donations needs to end.

– Rod Binnington, Brighton

History to repeat

The Liberal party in power is demonstrating that it has not learnt from history. This story is a re-run of the land scandals of the 1960s. The difference is that the undisclosed electoral donations have been exposed and it is much earlier in the life of a conservative government.

The question is whether the people of Victoria have learnt from history and whether they will eject this administration at the earliest opportunity. The problem is that “Lib donors” have three more years to wreck what’s left of the green wedges.

– Ken Rivett, Ferntree Gully

Ted’s true colours

The sight of Ted Baillieu spruiking Deloitte’s report on the effect of the proposed carbon tax on the Victorian economy makes me wonder if he, like his federal leader, is a science sceptic (“Baillieu’s carbon paper looks on both sides now”, The Age, 19/8).

Consider his recent record on the environment. First, against scientific advice, he allows cattle grazing in our Alpine Park. Then, despite decades of research and calls to do the opposite, he decides to downgrade our state’s capacity to lower its emissions. Then he signals to developers that he is willing to allow them to bitumenise our city’s green wedges and log precious native habitats.

Have his scientific advisers been replaced by advisers with degrees in business, or does he just not listen to those with degrees in science?

– Michael Weadon, Ballarat