My published letter – 30/4

Got published, in today’s Herald-Sun! Same as my last entry (only slightly edited), but I’ll reproduce it below, along with another:

Plan to restrict population instead

Planning Institute of Australia Victorian president Jason Black can surely not be serious in proposing to destroy pleasant, leafy suburbs and replacing them with hideous high-rise apartments (“Bulldoze the ‘burbs”, April 29). Any government that tried that strategy would face a citizens’ revolution. Far better to restrict population growth so housing demand is lessened and amenity can be preserved, though that would not please the greedy developers and construction industry.

– Suzanne McHale

Planners, politicians are out of touch

The Planning Summit referred to in your report, “Bulldoze the ‘burbs” (April 29) was for professionals, not for residents. It was too expensive for us, and they did not want any of us speaking. Planners and politicians are out of touch with reality and out of touch with the people.

It is time we had a summit on population. Do we want Melbourne to have a population of five million? Would it stop there? Let’s discuss alternatives. Let the people have a say. I challenge the Government to organise a population summit that includes residents.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash (a network of 150 resident groups), Camberwell Plan to restrict population instead

“High-rise plan to halt the sprawl”, The Age, 30/4. Another plan to accommodate a projected population of 5 million by building ugly high-rise apartments along transport routes and shopping centers. These would overshadow the streets.

“Australia’s Dry Run”, National Geographic, April 2009. This is an alarming report on the degradation of a major river system in Australia (the Murray-Darling Basin) and the consequences for the people and animals dependent upon it (the river has been a major source of irrigation and water supplies). (If the article is taken offline, I will reproduce it below.) It shows how human carelessness can destroy an ecosystem. The capital city of Adelaide is precariously dependent upon the Murray for its water supply, and is now on permanent water restrictions.

He cannot be serious!

“Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 29/4. Seems to be a week for dumb articles, as this outrageous proposal was published today: Jason Black, the president of the Planning Institute of Australia’s Victorian division, put forward a proposal that Melbourne’s eastern suburbs (which have a lot of established trees and vegetation) be forcibly acquired, demolished and replaced with high-density housing.

Mr. Black says spacious suburban blocks should be leveled and the homes replaced with three to six-storey apartment buildings. Mr. Black said at a Melbourne planning summit yesterday: “We need to realise that some of the fundamentals driving the Government’s 2030 development plan have changed and we need to rethink how we’re going to go about delivering some of the objectives and the vision.” The conference heard that metropolitan Melbourne would need an extra 850,000 new homes by 2036 if fertility and immigration levels remained the same.

[…]

But Dr. Bob Birrell, a Monash University population and urban research expert, said compulsory acquisition of middle suburban properties would not be acceptable. “I think this (redevelopment) would be a nightmare for people that live there and they would see it as expropriating them in order facilitate someone else’s growth objective and I could see why they would be so testy,” he said.

A letter I sent to the H-S (don’t know if it will be published):

Jason Black can surely not be serious in proposing to destroy the pleasant leafy suburbs that help make Melbourne liveable, and replace them with hideous cramped high-rise apartments (“Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs”, 29/4) – any government that tried that strategy would face a citizens’ revolution! Far better to restrict population growth so that housing demand is lessened and amenity can be preserved, though that would not please the greedy developers and construction industry.

It’s bad enough that this increasingly dictatorial government is intending to override councils’ decisions in order to fast-track planning and construction (“Brumby sidelines councils”, The Age, 16/4) – I wish enough people would get motivated to instigate a revolt and overthrow this government!

The next pandemic (maybe)

“Mexico flu ‘a potential pandemic’ ”, BBC News, 26/4; Wikipedia: 2009 swine flu outbreak. This new flu strain, which originated in Mexico, is causing much alarm as it has so far killed nearly 100 people there, and air travelers have spread isolated cases to other countries. The World Health Organization says it has the potential to become a pandemic; unlike the avian flu this one, derived from pigs, seems to be more virulently effective at spreading. Young people are more likely to be victims. With high population densities worldwide, a pandemic is only a matter of time, and overcrowded cities combined with accessible air travel make perfect conditions for a virus to spread.

While browsing The New York Times, I came across an environmental blog, Dot Earth, with the tagline, “Nine billion people. One planet”.

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, reporter Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Supported in part by a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Mr. Revkin tracks relevant news from suburbia to Siberia, and conducts an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts.

Seems that the author feels such population growth is inevitable! If worldwide measures were taken now (enforcing family size limits, giving women access to health care, family planning and education), that huge unsustainable number might not be reached.

One entry is titled, “U.N.: Young and Old Boom on the Road to 9 Billion”:

The United Nations Population Division has updated its population forecasts through 2050, and concludes that, despite a longstanding global decline in fertility rates, the world is still on a path to exceed 9 billion people by mid-century, with the vast majority of the increase coming in the world’s poorest countries.

In those countries, large proportions of the population are children or teenagers, who could contribute either to a large workforce and economic gains or – in the absence of education and jobs – to instability and conflict.

The other fast-growing group around the globe is the oldest segment of the populations, according to the United Nations – and that trend also can pose challenges, particularly in the absence of a large working-age population.

A world crammed with that many people – and polluted by their waste products – is a nightmarish scenario (I will be 80 in 2050).

Denying reality

“Depopulate and die of boredom”, The Age, 26/4. Oooh, the sheer cluelessness of this opinion piece is unbelievable!

Why cut Australia’s population to 7 million when it already suffers from too few people. It must take a rather active imagination to look at a map of Australia and think that it is too full.

If you look at a climatic map of Australia, you can see that much of the land is desert – not exactly habitable! The areas where many people live are facing a crises as the water supplies dwindle due to climate change. (Wikipedia: Climate of Australia, for more information)

Last week Sandra Kanck, the national president of the environmental group Sustainable Population Australia, urged the country to cut down its population from 21 million souls to just 7 million. To do so, she recommended we adopt a one-child policy, completely eliminating middle-child syndrome and saving the planet in the process. China’s one-child policy appears to have gone from a massive human rights violation that is universally condemned to “Hey, now that’s an idea”.

As I have noted in previous entries, China’s population is so huge that it must take drastic measures to restrain further growth if it wants to sustain social stability. “Human rights” is not a priority (and some might argue, a luxury).

Certainly, Sustainable Population Australia is just a fringe environment group, and criticising them for their warped moral compass is like criticising the Citizens Electoral Council for their bad economics. But the idea that we desperately need to shut down breeding for a while in order to save the planet is surprisingly widespread.

Quite a lot of people support SPA, which shows the concern people feel for the environmental degradation and overcrowding caused by overpopulation.

But if you believe that population growth will eventually lead to the collapse of our civilisation and planet, then the last millennium of human history must be very confusing. Over and over, we have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to innovate our way out of any theoretical “limit to growth”. So it takes a strange sort of intellectual hubris to imagine that the exact moment you are alive just happens to be the exact moment in human history that we cross the “too many people” line. In the 1970s, zero population growth advocates were pretty sure the end was nigh, but humanity has managed to barrel on for a few more decades. Anyway, few species have found flirting with extinction a particularly effective survival strategy.

The anthropocentric belief that “human ingenuity” and technology can solve all man-made problems is sheer hubris – and can lead to disaster. The Earth has never before had to cope with such a huge human population – and the waste products emitted by such numbers. We are already seeing the consequences now – water, food and energy (e.g. oil) shortages – and it could be said we are “flirting with extinction” now because of the doctrine of endless growth the world’s economies are in thrall to.

But we could spend all day debating the impact of population on the environment. I’m more concerned about another thing: can you imagine how excruciatingly boring Australia would be with only 7 million people?

[…]

Pretty much everything interesting and exciting about the world is the direct result of human action. Fewer people would mean fewer people doing cool stuff. How would life be without basil pesto, the British version of The Office, single malt whisky, SuperTed or Facebook? Nasty and brutish, sure, but agonisingly long.

I would not miss these at all – and Nature provides some exciting events in any case! Most so-called culture is unmitigated crap. I, for one, would be quite happy to live amongst a smaller population – less competiton for resources, more living space around oneself.

And let’s face it – whatever meaning has been imposed on the environment has been imposed by people. So when deep greens exalt nature as morally superior to humanity, it comes across as just a little bit stupid. When the chips are down, surely our loyalty lies with the human race.

Chris Berg is another “humans are wonderful” advocate. Yes, humans are clever and innovative, but these traits can be self-destructive. I don’t want to see humanity become extinct (I doubt few concerned about overpopulation do – else why would we be so concerned?); I would like to see humanity become wiser, more modest and frugal. We are a part of Nature, not separate from it! To be concerned about the environment is to take an interest in our own long-term survival.

I sent off a letter to The Age (don’t know if it will get published):

Chris Berg (“Depopulate and die of boredom”, The Age, 26/4) evidently hasn’t noticed that an Australian map shows most of the continent is dry, uninhabitable desert, with dwindling water supplies in many regions. I would happily live in an Australia (and world) with a smaller population as it means humanity and the environment would have a sustainable future – and would simply be pleasanter. The “go forth and multiply” mindset is well and truly outdated.

Growing like a cancer

“Pressure grows as Melbourne rockets to 4 million”, The Age, 24/4. Another dismaying report from the Bureau of Statistics, showing that Melbourne is growing at an alarming rate (an average of 1500 people coming here a week).

The label of Australia’s fastest-growing city might once have been one for which Melbourne yearned but these days it could be more of a burden for Premier John Brumby and his Government, adding to overcrowded trains, congested roads, housing prices, housing shortages and delays in hospital treatment. In the past, the State Government used to seize on figures showing strong population growth as evidence that Victoria was leading the nation. Yesterday Mr. Brumby was silent on the data showing even faster growth.

Because it makes life increasingly unbearable for those already living here! Increased stress due to increasing competition for resources and living space, which means that crime will invariably rise. The suburbs continue to spread across the once-open land like a metastizing cancer – but residents oppose increasing suburban density:

Despite the pressures of a booming population – much of it driven by overseas students and new migrants wanting to settle close in – growth in the inner and middle suburbs declined significantly, as rising costs and council opposition blocked many residential redevelopments.

And rightly, too! The suburbs as originally designed were intended to give some space for the residents of the houses, and avoid the squalor of overcrowded slums like those in London. Unfortunately that vision is being eroded as high-density developments intrude.

“Influx putting the brakes on travel times”, The Age, 24/4. The overcrowding is also leading to increased road traffic as underfunded, privately-run public transport proves inadequate to cope.

Melbourne is not yet at the nightmarish level of megacities such as Tokyo, Moscow, Mexico City or London, but it is heading in that direction.

“Move over, it’s getting crowded”, The Australian, 22/4. Good opinion piece on the negatives of population growth.

“Jason Kenney fires up the melting pot”, Ottawa Citizen, 18/4. An article about the Canadian Minister for Immigration and Multiculturalism who is taking the (now-radical) view of encouraging immigrants to integrate, rather than wall themselves off in ethnic communities – “Integration, not separation” could be a slogan; such a policy encourages social cohesion and harmony.

In the past two months, Kenney has been speaking out at newspaper editorial boards, chambers of commerce and universities, raising concerns over the language abilities of immigrants, the danger of ethnic enclaves, even the “radicalization” and “extremism” among some tiny pockets of immigrants.

Multiculturalism? “Marvellous, established, irreversible.” Just don’t expect taxpayers to foot the bill for cultural festivals. “We don’t need government grants for cultural communities to celebrate their customs,” said Kenney in an interview Friday.

He makes no apologies for diverting the focus of the multiculturalism department from anti-racism programming to what he calls community “bridge building.”

“The best way to combat bigotry, racism or stereotypes is for people to get to know each other,” he said. “I’m a little skeptical that sending people to sterile sensitivity-training seminars is going to address those who harbour racist sentiments.”

To the topic of space travel. I was reading the comments at a NASA Watch entry, “NASA Faces Tough Choices & Needs an Administrator Now”, and some of the commenters display a dislike of “greenies” (environmentalists) apparently because they have the audacity to suggest that humanity should learn to live within its means rather than look to space as a source of more resources to fuel endless growth (and that they are also to blame for the decline of the U.S. space program in general!). A comment by Dennis Wingo that exemplifies this:

We must recapture what is important about space, which is that we live in a solar system rich with resources and that it can be the ultimate legacy in history of the United States of America to open that frontier for all mankind.

[…]

Today in Japan, a man named Meadows received Japan’s highest honor for a book that is complete bullshit, which is that we live on this single planet, this is all that we have, and that we must learn to live with less. Dr. David Webb once told me that he was a member of the board of directors of the group that funded the study that Limits to Growth was based upon. After the Club of Rome report was provided to them, he asked why space development was not included as an alternate future. He was informed that none of the people in the study believed in space as an option (this was circa 1968). Dr. Webb then started on the path to teach people about the value of space and there is an ad on this page today for the graduate space studies program that he set up.

Space is the Black Swan of civilization, the disruptive technology that will allow us to look back on Limits to Growth as a quaint example of limited thinking about the future.

[…]

We will have an RLV when there is a market to support it. Get over it. We will have the support of society for our dreams, when we quit dreaming small dreams. We create markets, and we fulfill dreams, by the development of the economic resources of the solar system, beginning at the Moon, asteroids, and then Mars.

Getting to space is currently expensive and difficult, so mining the resources of the solar system is a long way off yet (I don’t see it happening before the end of this century, if ever, barring some technological breakthrough such as making nuclear fusion energy viable). This attitude does nothing to solve the environmental problems besetting Earth, and perpetuates the mentality of greed. Humans should learn to live within their means as it is the prudent and moral thing to do. (I have some difficulty creating a coherent argument to counter such a viewpoint – any better suggestions? The article, “The Dream Palace Of The Space Cadets”, provides some counter-arguments to some of the nonsense espoused by “armchair experts” in the space community – I wrote about this attitude in my 4/2/2009 entry.)

“Meadows” is Dr. Dennis Meadows, author of Limits to Growth – the Japanese award is described here.

China’s surplus males

I have addressed this topic before (2/6/2008 entry), but there have been three articles this week about the potential for social unrest that ensues from a population of single, unemployed young men. The cultural preference for boys in China and the one-child policy means that female foetuses are sometimes aborted.

“Chinese Bias for Baby Boys Creates a Gap of 32 Million”, New York Times, 10/4.

The Chinese government is openly concerned “about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for social stability and security,” the researchers said. But “although some imaginative and extreme solutions have been suggested,” they wrote, China will have too many men for a generation to come.

“With 32.7 Million ‘Excess Males,’ What Will Become of China?”, io9, 14/4.

“Sex Reversal”, Slate, 15/4.

The government is very aware of the problem and has openly expressed concerns about the consequences of large numbers of excess men for societal stability and security. As early as 2000 the government launched a range of policies to specifically counter the sex imbalance, the “care for girls” campaign. This includes changes in laws in areas such as inheritance by females, as well as an educational campaign to promote gender equality. These measures have had some success, with reports of lower sex ratios at birth in targeted localities.

In other words, the quota on children, translated through sexism into a quota on girls, has created a political problem for the government. And this, in turn, has forced the government to confront sexism economically and culturally. This policy change is being driven not by moral enlightenment but by practical necessity. The old problem was too many children. The new problem is too few girls. Without enough girls, the boys become unruly. So the government, following the same collective logic that inspired the one-child policy, has become the world's biggest promoter of sexual equality.

A few commenters remarked that the time-honored method of dealing with a male surplus was a war, though this is somewhat uncontrolled and messy. The other rather drastic solution would be a controlled cull, as I noted in that entry. China can’t afford to relax its population policy if its government is to maintain social stability.

“The cut and thrust of secret men’s business”, The Age, 14/4. A short but positive profile of a doctor who has performed a huge number of vasectomies (13 000 to date!).

Sir David Attenborough joins the cause

“Attenborough warns on population”, BBC News, 13/4. This article reports that Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of the UK-based Optimum Population Trust, as he is very concerned at the drastic increase in human population during his lifetime.

On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was “frightening”. Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife.

I have enjoyed his TV nature documentaries for many years, so it’s nice to know he is concerned about the issue. For future generations – perhaps as early as mid-century – the documentaries may be poignant records of environments and species which have vanished by then, no thanks to their destruction by humans.

IVF entitlement fanatics

“IVF baby is priceless, but who pays?”, The Age, 12/4. This article gives some details of the costs of IVF treatments, 80% of which is funded by Medicare. There is talk of paring back such rebates as part of budget cuts, but again the selfish irrationality of the lobby group, Access Australia, is evident:

But Access Australia, which represents IVF consumers, is taking no chances. It has been encouraging its members to flood the offices of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan with angry emails. Sandra Dill, Access chief executive, argues that infertility is a medical condition like any other funded through Medicare and should not be singled out.

These fanatics seriously anger me. As I have said before, while infertility is a medical condition, it is not life-threatening, disabling or disfiguring – an infertile person can lead a normal life and perhaps find other means of fulfilment. Some ideas for curbing funding:

• Funding for one child per woman.
• No funding for women over 40 (when fertility declines and risks of birth defects increase).

“Water cut off in Mexican capital ”, BBC News, 10/4; “Dry Taps in Mexico City: A Water Crisis Gets Worse”, TIME, 11/4. Mexico City is currently enduring a water supply crisis. It has a growing population of nearly 9 million (and ~10 million in the outer region), so you can imagine the ensuing disaster should supplies dry up altogether. This is an ominous warning for other drought-prone cities, such as those in Australia.

Water is a right, not a privilege

I have a collection of saved-up articles, so I will go through them here:

“Extreme Motherhood”, Newsweek, 17/3. Report on a rather disturbing religious fanatic organization called “Quiverfull”, whose aim is for its women members to bear as many children as possible. The Duggars (18 children and counting…) are the most notorious example. They forego all forms of birth control in the misguided belief that their deity wishes women to be primarily breeders. Aside from the obvious overpopulation issues this raises, such constant childbearing is deleterious to a woman’s health and body.

“Earth population ‘exceeds limits’ ”, BBC News, 31/3. Comment by a U.S. science advisor, Dr. Nina Fedoroff.

Next, a 1/4 Herald-Sun article on the mass worldwide unemployment resulting from the recession caused by financial greed and stupidity. This shows the disadvantage of a growing population when such a preventable event happens – there are simply not enough jobs for everyone, so social unrest and crime will increase. It also demonstrates that governments can’t see past the entrenched “endless growth” mindset. I could not find the article online, so I have reproduced it below:

Millions to join jobless queues

Bank chiefs say we will fare better than most

An extra 25 million workers could be thrown on the scraphead by the world’s leading devel oped nations, one of the world’s economic power- brokers has warned. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development boss Angel Gurria spoke of a “fully blown social crisis” unless decisive action is taken to halt the global economic crisis. “Restoring global growth is an economic and political priority, but also an ethical, moral, social and human imperative,” he told G8 labour ministers in Rome.

The bleak assessment came as the Reserve Bank admitted for the first time that Australia will fall into recession. But Australia’s unemployment rate is not expected to sink to the disastrous 10 per cent plus levels of other OECD countries. OECD chief economist Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel said jobless numbers in the Group of Seven rich nations would nearly double to almost 36 million and would rise by 25 million across the OECD as a whole by late 2010. The sombre analysis came ahead of G20 Summit talks in London starting tomorrow.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last night told a business forum in London the financial system cracked after decades of worshipping the “false god” of unfettered markets. “The truth is, sometime last September, something almost audibly cracked in the public’s trust in our financial markets,” Mr. Rudd said. He condemned “an ideology that says government intervention is, by definition, bad”. Mr. Rudd called for a balance between individual enterprise and the common good. “Over the last quarter of a century this balance has been eroded. Unfettered markets became worshipped as a god – and we now know that god was false.”

In its interim report, the OECD does not make a prediction on Australia’s unemployment rate, which is officially forecast by Treasury to reach just 7 per cent. Growth is expected to shrink by an average 4.3 per cent this year in the 30 OECD nations, while the world economy will shrink by 2.7 per cent. Deputy Reserve Bank governor Ric Battelino conceded Australia would go into recession. “There are limits on how much we can insulate ourselves from what is happening abroad. GDP is likely to fall in 2009,” he said.

But Mr. Battelino maintained Australia will fare better than other countries and says the worst of China’s economic problems have passed. Treasurer Wayne Swan agreed negative growth was inevitable. “The significant downgrade in global growth from the OECD and World Bank reflects just how severe this global recession has become,” he said. The OECD said China will grow by just 6.3 per cent and India by 4.3 per cent. “The world economy is in the midst of its deepest and most synchronized recession in our lifetimes,” it said.

“Time for rethink on water: adviser”, The Age, 3/4. A Victorian State Government adviser, David Downie, belives water should be treated as a commodity, not an essential service. The fallacy of this view is appalling – water is not a frivolity people can do without, and it is listed by the United Nations as one of humanity’s basic rights (see quote from the linked document below). A society should not have its essential services held hostage by rapacious private corporations! Unfortunately Victoria is one state that is in this situation, no thanks to Premier Jeff Kennett’s traumatic reforms and privatization through the 1990s. A disaster it has been, with prices constantly rising.

“Privatization” of water services is often a controversial issue, and the involvement of the private sector in water delivery has accelerated over the past decade. In many countries, private sector involvement has extended beyond selling water from trucks and supply of infrastructure to the full operation and management of water delivery systems. While governments under international human rights law may permit private sector involvement, their responsibilities remain the same. Steps must be taken to ensure that the sufficiency, safety, affordability and accessibility of water are protected from interference as well as ensuring that everyone will enjoy the right in the shortest possible time.Where it is involved, the private sector should be encouraged by governments to participate effectively in ensuring people’s right to water.

– The right to water

I commented about this on a 2007 libertarian blog entry, “Government’s water shortage”, (can’t directly link to the comment, but mine is #218). A few of the libertarian types sought to correct me (they believe privatization solves all problems), but I stand by my opinion. Some letters from The Age, 4/4:

Just another way to make money

A top State Government water adviser, David Downie, is asking Victorians to see water as a commodity rather than relying on our “traditional belief” that it is an essential service (“Time for rethink on water: adviser”, The Age, 3/4).

What a remarkable insight into the thinking of the State Government. Mr. Downie was one of the architects of the 2007 water plan that includes desalination and the north-south pipeline.

Let’s consider how well that plan has played out – cost blow-outs with both projects, a multinational company set to take over the desalination plant, the possibility that only a fraction of the intended water will flow through the pipeline from our inland rivers, billions of litres of water a year pumped out to sea rather than being used in industry, and our water-guzzling power stations relying on excellent-quality drinking water from the mountains near Mount Baw Baw. To pay for these projects, our water bills are set to go through the roof.

If this is what happens when you consider water as just another commodity, then maybe it’s time to revert to our “traditional beliefs” and demand the Government treat it as an essential resource that must be managed for the public good and the benefit of the environment, rather than just one more way to make money.

– Cam Walker, campaigns co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth, Fitzroy

Essential service

David Downie, there can never be any doubt that the supply of water is an essential service. Would you have water dribble out of taps according to one’s ability to pay? Would you have a company with the efficiency standards of Connex and the relevant minister controlling the on/off valve? Other countries have gone down this fraught road only to regret it. Water may be treated for our health but it is not a manufactured product to be sold according to whatever the market will bear. The true character of big business has been exposed by our current global financial difficulties, yet you advise that the supply of water be endangered by the gambling habits of brokers.

– Roger Green, Ferntree Gully

Selling hot air

It appears that David Downie, who is employed by the State Government, which theoretically represents the interests of Victorian residents, wants to hand over the sale of water to private industry, the same type of people that misrun our suburban rail network.

The excuse is that we should “consider water as a commodity rather than cling to our traditional belief that it is an essential service”. Try doing without water or anything containing water for a week and see how essential it is. Next they will probably try to sell us the air that we breathe.

– Lance Fishman, Upwey

“EcoGeek of the Week: Author, Paolo Bacigalupi”, Ecogeek, 4/4. An author who has some blunt opinions on overpopulation. I found this via an io9 entry – “The Best Green Technology Is Population Control”. The topic annoyed a few commentators, who voiced the usual asinine opinions (much of the commentary and articles on io9 tend to be such).

“G20 missed consumption, population issues: lobby group”, ABC News, 5/4. Statement by Sustainable Population Australia that “the G20 summit has failed to recognise that over-consumption and overpopulation are the reasons for the global economic turmoil.”

Some collected letters:

Swamps help to keep us all cool

Denise Gadd’s article on Phillip Johnson’s wetland ecosystem for the Melbourne garden show (Metropolis, 1/4) is a timely reminder of the effect of wetlands on lowering temperatures and guaranteeing moisture to surrounding areas.

It’s a wake-up call for governments, which have allowed the infilling of these systems in the past 30 years for housing and commercial purposes, in particular the western wetlands and those at Edithvale. Those under the West Gate Bridge, in which enormous numbers of waterfowl nested in 1992-93, are largely gone, with only two unappealing greenish ponds remaining. Ditto for much of the Laverton marsh areas and, if the Planning Minister has his way, those at Point Lonsdale soon.

I contend that this disregard for our natural waterways has added to the drying out of Melbourne in general and increased the impact of high temperatures on surrounding suburbs. Certainly it has contributed to the demise of waterbirds, few of which now have a wide choice of habitat to resort to in times of climatic stress.

– Loucille McGinley, East Brighton, The Age, 2/4

Less people, more power

What a waste of effort and what hypocrisy in 1 billion people switching off their lights for one Earth Hour. In that time, there were approximately 10,000 new consumers added to the planet.

From just one hour’s net increase in human numbers, and assuming they live in a Western lifestyle as they all wish to do, our tiny planet must provide in one year a princely 7 billion litres of water.

For this hourly net increase of 10,000 humans, there will be a carbon footprint of about 15,000 tonnes in the first year, and about 1.2 million tonnes in their collective lifetime. And this is only one hour’s production of our species.

Cessation of population growth will give our species a chance to compute a sustainable number of us depending upon how we wish to consume. Any other fix must end in disaster, as has occurred in many past civilisations as they overpopulated themselves into oblivion, no doubt with the blessings of their political leaders, economists, planners and other population zealots.

– Geoff Rankin, Brighton, The Age, 4/4

Lawns breathe life into environment

It seems the Brumby government spin doctors have people believing watering lawns is a waste of water. One per cent of water is used on gardens yet 10 per cent is wasted because of broken water mains each year.

Lawns cut and maintained at 50 mm or more provide three times more oxygen than trees and absorb three times more O₂ than Australian trees. Green grass is an outdoor “climate control”, able to lower ground and air temperatures by up to 20 degrees. Lawns of 240 m² provide enough oxygen for a family of four a day (at ground level). Grasses act as a dust and erosion filter for cleaner air and prevention of water runoff. Green grasses are fire retar dant, but dry, burning grass adds tonnes of CO₂ to the air.

As there are many thousands employed in the long-suffering horticultural industry, it is time for those who profess to be green to realise where the solution to global warming really is. Green is cool.

– John Bird, (Supporter of Vic Coalition for Sustainable Water Use), Somerville, Herald-Sun, 6/4