“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
